working_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: the decay formula, filtering capabilities, and tombstone exclusion, which go beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.

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, compact sentence covering version, purpose, formula, filters, and exclusions. No redundant phrases; every part adds value. It is front-loaded with the core action.

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 description covers the purpose, filtering, exclusion, and scoring logic. It does not explicitly state that results are sorted by decay score (implied by 'Top-K') or mention pagination, but for a read operation with default top_K=10, it is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'Filters by kind / session_id' which aligns with parameters but does not add new meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. The decay formula is not parameter-specific.

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 specifies it retrieves top-K live working-memory entries sorted by a decay score formula, with filters for kind/session_id and exclusion of tombstoned entries. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like working_add or working_promote.

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 states filtering options (kind/session_id) and that tombstoned entries are excluded, which helps an agent decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to similar getter tools in the sibling list.

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