get

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses the resolution precedence (non-document entity beats same-named document), that passed-over documents appear in `shadowedDocuments`, that ambiguous non-document names return a pointed error naming candidates, and that demoted insights remain fetchable. It never states permission/scope requirements around the `scopes` default or side-effect freedom beyond what 'get' implies.

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?

It is front-loaded correctly, leading with the fetch action and the accepted name forms, but the back half is a long per-type enumeration of returned fields (insight statement/insightType/state, consolidated memory summary/memoryType, etc.) that duplicates what the output schema already declares. That block is padding against a tool that has an output schema and dilutes the high-value resolution rules.

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 six parameters, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly: accepted name forms, resolution precedence, the ambiguity error path, scope semantics, and temporal anchors by reference to the schema. Nothing required for a correct invocation is missing.

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; the description earns above that by adding resolution semantics the schema does not state — case-insensitive display-name resolution, the entity-over-document precedence rule, and the fact that `kind` is ignored for resource-name and bare-uid lookups. It leaves `at`, `asOf`, `scopes`, and `includeInactive` entirely to 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?

The first sentence gives a specific verb+resource ('Fetch one record by AIP resource name') and enumerates the exact collection prefixes the lookup accepts. It also positions itself against the sibling recall tool ('the structured, LLM-free way to follow any recall hit's name field' ... 'get is not the hot-recall index'), so an agent can pick between them without opening a schema.

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?

Usage context is clear: use this to resolve a name coming out of a recall hit, and use `kind` / a vault path when a document and a domain entity share a name. It stops short of an explicit exclusion sentence (e.g. 'to search by content or filter by user, use recall/query instead') and gives no guidance on when to prefer the sibling `entities`, `relations`, or `fact` readers over this one.

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