memory_get_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a retrieval/load operation with no destructive side effects implied, and adds context about the L2 level and what data is included. It does not explicitly discuss failure modes or permissions, but for a get-style tool the load semantics are reasonably transparent.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the operation and resource, then lists contents in a compact series and ends with the usage trigger. There is no filler or redundancy; every clause contributes to correct invocation or selection.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described in the description. The description provides the trigger condition and payload contents, which is enough for most calls, though the optional project parameter and edge-case behavior are omitted. For a low-complexity two-parameter getter, this is nearly complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It gives meaning to the required parameter via 'by id' and implies archive_id originates from a memory_recall result, but the optional 'project' parameter is never mentioned. This partial coverage is helpful but leaves one parameter semantically unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb ('Load') and resource ('full archive body (L2) by id'), and enumerates the contents returned: solution_doc, overview, conversation_summary, attachments, document_tree_nodes. It differentiates itself from memory_recall by tying its use to 'type=archive', so an agent can distinguish the tools without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when memory_recall returned type=archive', giving a concrete trigger condition and naming the sibling (memory_recall) as the relevant alternative. This is clear guidance for selecting this tool over related memory tools.

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