Retrieve a memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and side-effect profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the underlying REST mapping (GET /memories/{id}) and the Memories tag, which is orientation context rather than behavioral 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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the operation and endpoint mapping stated directly. Minor waste in the opening line duplicating the title, but nothing else to trim.

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 one-parameter, idempotent read whose safety profile is fully declared by annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The only gap is that no output schema exists, so the agent gets no hint about what a returned memory object contains.

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 100% and the single parameter's UUID format is documented in the schema itself. The description's 'by its ID' merely restates the parameter's role, adding no format, scoping, or authorization detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Retrieve a specific memory') and the lookup key ('by its ID'), which implicitly separates it from the list-style siblings such as immich_search_memories or immich_memories_statistics. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 phrase 'by its ID' implies the precondition (you must already hold a memory ID, so this is not a discovery/browse tool), which contrasts only implicitly with immich_search_memories. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.

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