memory_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Read' and 'retrieve' — essentially restating the name. It does not mention max_chars truncation, error behavior for missing references, return format, or what distinguishes a 'SecondBrain note' from a 'historical catalog entry'.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, and the description is too thin to compensate. It omits critical details like parameter semantics (especially max_chars), return value structure, and domain context for 'SecondBrain note' vs 'catalog entry', leaving the agent under-informed for proper 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It provides an example reference (H0372) suggesting reference IDs, but it does not explain the `reference` parameter's allowed format or the `max_chars` parameter at all, leaving both underspecified.

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 tool reads a SecondBrain note or retrieves a historical catalog entry, giving a specific verb ('Read'/'retrieve') and resource. It distinguishes this from siblings like memory_search (searching vs retrieving by reference) and memory_update (read vs write).

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you have a reference like H0372 to fetch a specific note or catalog entry. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over memory_search or other siblings, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative guidance.

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