get_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Get memories' implies a read operation, but it does not disclose filtering semantics (e.g., how branch awareness affects results), ordering, pagination, or potential side effects. There is no mention of permissions or limits beyond the schema's default, leaving behavioral ambiguity.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that conveys the core action and a distinguishing feature without any redundancy or filler. It is immediately scannable and front-loaded.

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?

Despite full schema coverage, the absence of an output schema places a burden on the description to explain return values and behavioral semantics, which it does not. The description also lacks guidance on edge cases and the exact interplay between topic and branch awareness, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand expected results.

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?

The input schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by relating 'topic' to the primary search key and 'branch awareness' to the git_branch filter, but it does not enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema definitions.

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?

The description states 'Get memories by topic' with a clear verb and resource, and 'branch awareness' signals the git_branch filter, differentiating it from generic memory search tools like memory_search or search_memories. However, it does not explicitly name these siblings or define how branch awareness works, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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?

There is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The phrase 'by topic with branch awareness' implies a specific use case (topic-based retrieval with branch filtering), but the absence of named alternatives like memory_search or search_memories leaves the selection heuristic fuzzy.

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