memory_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond this – no note on what happens if the id is missing, no error behavior, no return context. With an output schema present, return format is partially covered, but the description still contributes little.

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?

One short sentence that is front-loaded and waste-free. Appropriate for a simple lookup tool, though it could include a bit more without becoming verbose.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any guidance on error behavior (e.g., invalid id) or how the id is obtained, leaving gaps that an agent might need to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should ideally clarify the memory_id format or source. It merely says 'by id' without explaining whether the id comes from memory_save or memory_search, so it adds minimal value over the schema's bare type declaration. Baseline 3 given one required param and output schema, but opportunity missed.

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 clear verb (get) and resource (memory) with the lookup key (id), distinguishing it from memory_save/update/delete/search/recent. It does not explicitly name how it differs from sibling tools, keeping it just below a 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like memory_search for retrieval by query, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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