goclaw_memory_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is for reading, implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions, has rate limits, returns structured data or raw content, or handles errors. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action ('Read') and resource ('memory document's content'), making it immediately understandable. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to the tool's purpose, achieving optimal conciseness.

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 simplicity (one parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, error handling, or return format. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should ideally provide more context about what 'content' entails and any usage constraints, but it's sufficient for a straightforward read operation.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter documented as 'Memory document ID'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying the ID is used to fetch content. Since the schema already provides adequate parameter documentation, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance or detract from the schema's information.

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 clearly states the action ('Read') and resource ('a memory document's content'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like goclaw_memory_create, goclaw_memory_delete, and goclaw_memory_list by focusing on reading content rather than creating, deleting, or listing. However, it doesn't specify what constitutes 'content' (e.g., text, metadata), which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid memory document ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like goclaw_memory_list for browsing or goclaw_memory_delete for removal. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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