get_memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds the crucial 'Returns null if not found' behavior and the exact return shape (Memory object {id, content, user_id, metadata}). It repeats 'Read-only operation' but supplements annotation data with retrieval semantics rather than contradicting it.

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?

Three short sentences deliver purpose, usage, and return behavior with no filler. The most decision-relevant facts (ID-based retrieval, null return, search_memory alternative) are front-loaded.

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 simple get-by-primary-key operation, the description is self-sufficient: it specifies how to obtain the ID, what the read-only semantics are, what is returned, and the null case. The optional user_id parameter is fully covered by the schema, so no critical 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage: both parameters, including the memory_id provenance and user_id default, are documented. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states, so it stays at the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Retrieve a single memory by its unique ID') and immediately clarifies key behavior. It differentiates from search_memory by explicitly directing content-based lookups elsewhere, so an agent can select this tool over siblings without inspecting schemas.

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?

It states exactly when to use the tool: when you have a specific memory_id from prior search/list results. It also gives an explicit alternative for other cases ('Prefer search_memory for content-based lookup') and notes the null result for missing IDs, making the decision boundary concrete.

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