memory_get

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

Without annotations, the description discloses that ambiguous prefixes return an error, which is a behavioral trait. It also implies the tool is a read operation returning a full item, but omits details like potential side effects, permissions, or rate limits. Overall adequate for a simple retrieval.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes key details on input constraints and error behavior. Every word serves a purpose, no redundancy.

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 retrieval tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the primary action, input format, and error condition. It is missing documentation of the 'database' parameter and return value structure, but the behavior is sufficiently specified for an agent to use correctly in most cases.

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 compensate. It adds meaning for the 'id' parameter by explaining acceptable formats and error conditions, but does not explain the 'database' parameter. This provides partial help but leaves the optional parameter undocumented.

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 retrieves a full MemoryItem, specifies the accepted ID formats (full UUID or 8-char prefix), and explains the error behavior for ambiguous prefixes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_search or memory_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?

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool (when you have a UUID or prefix), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or recommend alternatives like memory_search for non-ID-based retrieval. However, the inclusion of prefix behavior gives practical guidance.

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