memory_retrieve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Retrieve a value', which implies a read operation, but it does not describe what happens if the key is missing, whether there are side effects, or whether this tool auto-initializes memory. These are meaningful behavioral unknowns for an agent.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the main action. There is no filler or repetition of the tool name. It earns a high score for conciseness, though it is slightly under-specified in other dimensions.

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 simple one-parameter retrieval tool, the description is minimally adequate: an agent can infer the call pattern. However, with no output schema or annotations, the missing-key behavior and return format are left unspecified, and the relationship to 'memory_read' is unaddressed. This leaves noticeable gaps for a complete tool definition.

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 100%, and the only parameter 'key' is already documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'by key' simply restates the parameter's role and adds no additional semantic detail about key format, case sensitivity, or default behavior. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 states a clear verb ('Retrieve'), a resource ('value by key'), and the domain ('persistent memory'). It is not a tautology and is understandable at a glance. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'memory_read', which appears to serve the same retrieval 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as 'memory_read', 'memory_list', or 'memory_status'. It also gives no context for when retrieval is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or whether memory must be initialized first.

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