View full memory content

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that non-owned IDs are silently skipped, which is not implied by the schema or annotation hints. This is useful but only one additional behavioral trait.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence serves a distinct role: what it does, when to use it, and a non-obvious behavioral caveat. No wasted words.

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 tool with strong annotations and a fully described schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and the only non-obvious behavior (silent skipping of non-owned IDs). No output schema exists, but no return value explanation is necessary given the straightforward 'retrieve full content' semantics.

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%, with the single 'ids' parameter fully documented in the input schema (type, min/max length, min/max items, and source from list/recall tools). The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Retrieve full original content for one or more memory IDs.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by noting that list_memories and recall_memory return previews, while this tool returns full content.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when ragionex_list_memories or ragionex_recall_memory returned a preview and you need the complete content.' It also explains what happens with non-owned IDs ('silently skipped'), providing clear boundaries for expected behavior.

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