mempalace_get_drawer

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by stating the response includes bounded verbatim content and provenance metadata, helping the agent set expectations.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every phrase adds value.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with a rich output schema and strong annotations, this description is complete. It conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and what to expect in the response, which is sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 schema provides a clear description for drawer_id, and schema coverage is 100%. The description reinforces the parameter's role but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a clear resource 'tenant-scoped drawer' with a precise scope qualifier 'by id'. It also adds content details (bounded verbatim content and provenance metadata), which distinguishes it from siblings like mempalace_list_drawers.

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving a single drawer when you have its ID. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the naming and wording make the intended use case obvious.

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