Get Memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description confirms a read-only fetch but adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., error handling, return format, or owner scoping). No contradiction exists.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Fetch' and resource, containing zero redundant wording. Perfectly concise for the tool's simple purpose.

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 simplicity of retrieving a single record and the presence of annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could mention what 'memory record' includes or error behavior, but likely unnecessary for this narrow operation under the given schema.

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 50%, covering memory_id with 'Memory record id' but leaving owner_id undocumented. The description text does not add meaning for owner_id, only reinforcing the 'by id' purpose. It neither compensates for the gap nor complicates it.

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 'Fetch a single memory record by id' clearly states the action (fetch), the resource (memory record), and the scope (by id). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like lyzr_memory_list and lyzr_memory_search, which handle broader retrieval scenarios.

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?

The description implies usage when you have a specific memory_id, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like lyzr_memory_search or lyzr_memory_list. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.

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