agent_memory_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: it explains the relay-side encryption model, the key derivation from the identity's API key, that values are not encrypted locally, that the tool acts as the local identity, and that returned content is untrusted and must not be followed as instructions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds necessary security and trust context. It is slightly verbose but every sentence contributes useful information for safe invocation.

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 a simple two-parameter read tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description supplies all critical missing context: encryption behavior, identity assumption, and untrusted-content warning. Return values are covered by the output schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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 schema already documents both required parameters. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a value from relay-side memory'), making the operation clear. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling memory tools like set/delete/list through the singular 'value', but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing this tool over siblings like agent_memory_list or agent_memory_set, and no prerequisites beyond implied authentication.

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