get_memories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains default values (user_id defaults to env var, memory_type defaults to episodic_memory) and limit range (1-50). However, it does not mention read-only nature, auth requirements, or any side effects. Since the tool name suggests read-only, the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 very concise: two short sentences for purpose/guidelines, followed by a bullet-like list of parameters. Every sentence is informative, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary text.

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 has 4 parameters (none required), no enums, and an output schema, the description fully covers the necessary context. It explains each parameter's role, default behaviors, and distinguishes from siblings. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining all four parameters. It provides semantic meaning for each: user_id (with env var default), memory_type (with explicit list of types), group_id (optional filter), and limit (with range). This adds significant value beyond the schema's bare property definitions.

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 action ('retrieve stored memories') and the primary filters (user ID and type). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search_memory' by mentioning 'without a specific search query', which helps an agent differentiate when to use this tool.

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 a clear usage context: 'Use this tool to browse a user's memory collection without a specific search query.' This implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'search_memory' or conditions to avoid using this tool. The guidance is present but could be more explicit.

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