memory_candidate_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, yet it discloses nothing about behavior. It does not say whether the read is safe/non-mutating, what happens when the candidate_id does not exist (error vs empty), or whether pending/expired candidates are visible. 'Get' implies a read, but that is inference, not disclosure.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding and the key constraint ('by ID') front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 trivial one-parameter lookup with no output schema, this is close to the minimum viable. It is missing error/not-found behavior and any definition of what a 'candidate' is in the lifecycle (create/list/approve/reject/expire), which the sibling set shows is a meaningful distinction.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'By ID' confirms candidate_id is an identifier, but adds no format, expected value, or source for that ID (e.g., from memory_candidate_list). Marginal added value over the schema's string type.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one memory candidate by ID'), which is clearer than a bare name restatement. It implicitly separates itself from memory_candidate_list (single by ID vs list), but never distinguishes itself from the sibling memory_get, so an agent must guess which retrieval path applies.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as memory_candidate_list or memory_get. The only hint is the phrase 'by ID', leaving the agent to infer the retrieval context entirely.

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