open_memories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses return contents (memories, not_found IDs, pagination metadata), input limits (max 100 IDs, page_size max 100), and error behavior (ValueError for invalid IDs or oversized lists). This goes well beyond the raw schema, though it does not explicitly state side-effect profile beyond the verb 'Retrieve'.

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 structured with Args, Returns, and Raises sections, making it easy for an agent to scan. Every sentence carries operational value, and the one-line purpose statement is front-loaded. There is no redundant filler.

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 zero schema descriptions and no annotations, this description covers all necessary operational details: parameter semantics, limits, pagination behavior, return structure, and error conditions. An agent can call this tool correctly without needing external clarification.

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%, so the description must define every parameter. It does so effectively: memory_ids with max 100, include_relations as outgoing/incoming, include_scores as decay scores and age, page as 1-indexed, and page_size with max 100. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's names and types.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('specific memories by IDs'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. The 'by IDs' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling search/analysis tools that operate on queries or messages.

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 the tool is for retrieving known memories by ID, but it never explicitly states when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer (e.g., search_memory for queries). The usage context is inferable but not explicitly compared to alternatives.

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