get_memory

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

No annotations provided; description only states basic fetch action. Discloses no behavioral traits like size limits, error handling, or response format. As the sole source of behavioral info, it falls short.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource. No redundant words; every word serves a purpose.

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?

Tool is simple (1 param, no output schema, no annotations). Description sufficiently conveys the core action. Lacks details about what 'full body' entails, but adequate for a straightforward fetch operation.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter 'name' with description 'Memory file name (no extension)'. Tool description adds 'without .md' reinforcing the schema. Baseline 3 since schema already provides adequate semantics.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Fetch', identifies resource 'full body of a memory file', and specifies identifier 'by its name (without .md)'. This clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_memories, search_memory, and find_related.

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?

Implied usage when you have a specific memory name, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Sibling tools are listed but no differentiation in usage context.

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