Memory Get

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which cover safety. The description adds the behavioral trait 'with revision history', providing context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose any other behaviors like rate limits or permissions, which are less critical here.

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 perfectly concise and front-loaded. Every word is necessary; there is no wasted text. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool's simplicity (single fetch with history), the description is mostly complete with the key feature mentioned. Output schema exists to detail the return structure. Minor omissions include error handling (e.g., not found) and confirmation of uniqueness, but these are standard and don't significantly impair understanding.

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%, meaning the description must compensate by explaining parameters. The description does not mention 'id' (the required identifier) or 'response_format' (which controls output format). While the schema is self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic value, leaving the agent to infer parameter purpose.

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 'Fetch one stored memory with revision history' uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('one stored memory'), and adds a distinguishing feature ('revision history'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like memory_list (lists) or memory_recall (search/recall).

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 implies usage for fetching a specific memory by ID with its history, but does not explicitly state when to use this over memory_recall, memory_related, or memory_list. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the context is clear for a targeted retrieval.

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