memory_fetch_evidence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions verification behavior ('verify the exact candidate hash') but does not explain what happens on hash mismatch, whether the operation is read-only, or what constitutes 'registered evidence'. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity sacrifices detail that could have been included without harming structure.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain how parameters like path, start_line, and end_line relate to fetching evidence, or what the verification outcome looks like. While an output schema exists, critical usage context 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. It only alludes to the optional expected_sha256 parameter via 'candidate hash', but completely ignores required parameters like path and start_line, as well as end_line, context_lines, and event_id. No meaningful parameter semantics are conveyed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('registered evidence'), plus a conditional action ('verify the exact candidate hash when supplied'). This clearly indicates the tool's main function and hints at its distinguishing verification feature, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like memory_search_candidates.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_search_candidates or memory_latest. The phrase 'when supplied' implies a usage condition for hash verification, but there is no explicit recommendation, prerequisite, or exclusionary context.

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