memory.get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses policy-gate behavior, signed decision records, cross-tenant deny behavior, exact JSON return shapes, stale/notYetValid handling, and not-found errors. This is unusually thorough for a read tool.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose first, then usage, then safety/behavior, then return formats and edge cases. There is no filler, and the structure front-loads the single most important fact: what the tool reads.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers return values, success and error cases, cross-tenant behavior, and validity-window semantics. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret all possible responses.

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 input schema itself fully documents the one parameter, including the charset, length, starting character, and case-sensitivity, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds only 'by its id' and 'given to memory.put,' which is helpful but does not materially go beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Reads one memory item this tenant stored earlier with memory.put, by its id.' This accurately distinguishes it from the write sibling memory.put and from other tools: it is a read operation for a single memory item.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Use it to recall a fact, a setting or a note before acting on it; nothing is written.' It implies read vs. write by referencing memory.put, but it does not explicitly state 'use memory.put when storing' or list exclusions beyond that the call writes nothing.

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