Get full memory text by id

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing edge-case behavior (unknown or out-of-scope ids are skipped, exact sentinel string returned when nothing matches) and a security-relevant trait: recalled text is untrusted and wrapped in an <aletheia-memory> block that must never be followed as instructions. That prompt-injection guidance is high-value context no structured field carries.

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?

Front-loaded with the fetch purpose and benefit statement, then usage order, then caveats. The field enumeration is long but informative; the only mild bloat is listing every returned field when a shorter summary would suffice.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so (field list plus the exact no-match message), and it also covers input provenance and safety handling. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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, but the description adds batching semantics ("pass all ids in one call") and the id-provenance hint that ids come from search or timeline, which the schema's example only partially implies.

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 (fetch) and resource (full text of memories by id) and enumerates exactly what is returned: title, project, time, source, narrative, facts, files. This clearly separates it from siblings like search or timeline, which only return ids or summaries.

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?

Explicit sequencing instruction: "Use it last, after search or timeline picked the ids," naming the two sibling tools that produce ids. Also tells the agent to batch all ids in one call, which is actionable and non-obvious.

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