memory_get_lane

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get messages from a lane' clearly indicates a read-only retrieval and names the lane scoping, which is useful. However, it does not mention return shape, ordering, limits, or whether lane state is changed.

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 sentence that fronts the action and resource, with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

The tool is simple, but there are no annotations and no output schema. The description gives the core selection—lane—and the intent—external LLM summarization—yet it omits return expectations and does not guide the agent toward or away from sibling tools. It is minimally viable, not fully 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 needed to compensate, but it only mentions 'a lane' and does not explain agent_id or the semantics of the enum values. The lane parameter is partially illuminated; agent_id remains under-documented.

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 names a specific operation—get—and a specific resource—messages in a lane—and adds the use context 'for summarization by external LLM.' It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling retrieval tools like memory_get_context or memory_get_recent.

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 phrase 'for summarization by external LLM' implies a use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. An agent must infer how this differs from other memory retrieval tools.

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