memory_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'retrieve' clearly indicates a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is behaviorally transparent for a simple getter. It also mentions that it returns 'full content,' setting expectations for the response, though it does not detail edge cases like missing IDs.

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 two sentences, with the main action front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose; the second clarifies usage. No redundant information or filler words. Every sentence serves a distinct function: definition and usage guidance.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essentials: what it does, when to use it, and what the input should be. It references sibling tools implicitly by mentioning 'previous search,' providing context for integration. The simplicity of the operation doesn't demand more detail.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id', describing it as a UUID. The tool description adds context beyond the schema by stating the ID comes from 'a previous search,' helping the agent understand the provenance and relationship to sibling tools. This adds meaningful usage 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Retrieve a specific memory by its ID.' It uses a specific verb with a resource and scope, distinguishing it from siblings like memory_search (which finds memories without an ID) and memory_delete/memory_update (which modify memories). The additional clause 'need the full content' further clarifies its purpose.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use this when you have a memory ID from a previous search and need the full content.' This tells the agent the prerequisite (an existing memory ID) and the typical workflow (search first, then retrieve). It implies that this tool is not for initial discovery, contrasting with memory_search.

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