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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations do not: children are returned unresolved by default, and resolve:true triggers hydration plus memory previews, which implies extra cost/depth when enabled.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core behavior front-loaded and the optional flag described second. The parenthetical definition of a bundle is compact and earns its place.

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?

With only two params, full schema coverage, rich annotations and no output schema, the description needs to explain the return shape and the default-vs-resolved distinction, which it does. It stops short of describing ordering guarantees or how deep 'directly beneath' goes, a minor gap for an outline tool.

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 coverage is 100% and rootKey is already documented as 'the node_key of the bundle root'; the description's resolve explanation largely restates the schema's own 'hydrate child node details (slug, type, and a preview...)' wording. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Look at one bundle') and goes further by defining what a bundle is ('an ordered outline of memories for a book or project') and what it returns (root plus items directly beneath). That 'directly beneath' phrasing implicitly separates it from muninn_bundle_closure, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Look at one bundle' plus the resolve:true hint tells an agent how to inspect a single bundle's immediate children, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to muninn_bundle_list or muninn_bundle_closure as alternatives.

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