memory_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: long cards are chunked, the result footer reports remaining character count, and the agent should re-invoke with the returned offset. It omits any mention of permissions, error behavior, or the read-only nature, but the chunking contract is the important non-obvious detail.

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 and prerequisite are front-loaded, followed by the chunking/continuation mechanics. The final sentence is somewhat long but each clause earns its place by describing the pagination loop.

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?

With four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior an agent needs (id source, truncation trigger, chunk continuation). It is complete enough to call correctly, though return-shape details are inferred rather than stated.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds practical meaning by explaining how offset ties into the chunked-read continuation loop and when full/max_chars matters (长卡慎用). This goes beyond restating the 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 verb and resource (读取某张知识卡的完整内容) and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming memory_search as the prerequisite for obtaining the id. An agent can tell it apart from the other memory_* tools immediately.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the workflow (先用 memory_search 拿到 id，再调用本工具) and the triggering condition (检索结果里的摘要被截断时). It routes the agent from the search tool to this one with a clear when-to-use rule.

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