mem_get

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it discloses return fields (body, provenance, wikilinks), the version-trail behavior, and a critical trust/safety rule about untrusted memories. It does not cover all edge behaviors, but key traits are explicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded, and the description is structured from action to return details to parameter option to safety caveat. The safety warning is long but essential and earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core return structure, parameter behavior, and a non-obvious trust caveat. It is sufficiently complete for the agent to invoke correctly, though alternative selection guidance is absent (already scored separately).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It clarifies that slug identifies the memory and explains the effect of include_history=true. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action ('Fetch one memory by slug'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that search or list memories. The resource and identifier are precise, so the agent can tell exactly what this tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to choose mem_get over mem_search, mem_list, or mem_recall. The only usage note concerns include_history, which is parameter-level, not tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.