memory_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states it retrieves content, but it does not disclose any side effects (none expected for get), permissions needed, or error behavior (e.g., what happens if point_id not found). The lack of annotations is mitigated by the read-only nature implied by 'Fetch', but more context on behavior would improve the score.

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 sentence, short and front-loaded with action and object. It contains no redundant information, earning its place. However, it lacks any additional detail that could make it more helpful without expanding much.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is adequate for a basic retrieval. However, it leaves gaps: the 'project' parameter is unexplained, and the response format is not described (no output schema). A more complete description could clarify the project scope or that the full content is returned.

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. The description mentions 'by ID' which aligns with 'point_id', but it does not explain the 'project' parameter's role or provide any context beyond what the schema already offers. The description adds minimal value, leaving the agent to infer the purpose of 'project'.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), identifies the resource ('a single memory entry'), and specifies the retrieval mode ('full content by ID'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_search (searches) or memory_list_projects (lists), as it targets a single entry by a unique identifier.

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 is clear but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies usage for retrieving a known memory entry by ID, but it does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for partial content) or direct the agent to other tools like memory_search for lookup by content.

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