get_memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval action, which is helpful, but it does not describe behavior for not-found cases, ambiguous name matches, or the shape of the returned memory. These are meaningful gaps for a tool with no output schema.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then states the lookup key. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 retrieval tool, the description is minimally sufficient, but it leaves out important operational details: what happens when the name substring matches multiple memories, whether the match is case-sensitive, and what the response looks like. Since there is no output schema, these gaps matter more.

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%, so the parameter is already documented. The description restates that lookup is by 'numeric id or name' but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, such as matching rules or formatting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('Warp saved memory'), and a precise selection method ('by numeric id or name'). It also says 'one', which distinguishes it from the sibling 'list_memories' without ambiguity.

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 implies this tool should be used when a single memory is needed and an id or name is available. However, it does not explicitly explain when to prefer list_memories or search, nor does it mention any exclusions for ambiguous name substrings.

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