Retrieve memories by scope

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

With no annotations for readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('retrieves'), but lacks details on error handling, empty results, or performance implications. The description is minimally adequate.

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-formed sentence that directly states the tool's action and data source. No extraneous words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the simple parameter set (1 param, 100% coverage) and the presence of an output schema, the description captures the essential behavior. It could be more complete by hinting at return format, but for a retrieval tool it is sufficient.

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?

The schema covers the 'scope' parameter with 100% description, but the tool description adds semantic value by explaining that scope can combine user, application, and contextual IDs. This goes beyond the schema's generic description.

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 verb 'retrieves' and the resource 'memories', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'forget', 'remember', and 'update' that perform other operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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