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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing what each output mode yields and that show_keys embeds keys and memory ids to avoid a second lookup — real behavioral context the annotations cannot express.

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?

Four sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler; each sentence maps to a format mode or the show_keys affordance. It is slightly repetitive in enumerating formats that the enum already lists, but nothing is wasted.

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 an 8-parameter, 1-required read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the primary output shapes look like and what the most consequential flag (show_keys) does. The remaining optional md-only knobs are fully specified in the schema, so no critical gap is left, though the sibling overlap with bundle_export_okf is unaddressed.

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%, so a baseline of 3 would be defensible, but the description adds genuine meaning: it explains that 'tree' is a compact outline of slugs and that show_keys exists specifically to make a follow-up edit possible without an extra bundle_get. That is rationale, not just a restatement of the schema.

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 (render) and resource (bundle), and the parenthetical defines the domain object ('an ordered outline of memories for a book or project'), so an agent knows exactly what is being produced. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling muninn_bundle_export_okf, which the 'okf' format appears to overlap with.

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?

Gives clear context for choosing among the three format modes (md = readable markdown in order, tree = compact slug outline, okf = JSON export), plus a concrete reason to enable show_keys for a follow-up edit. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use-it or routing to alternatives such as bundle_get or bundle_export_okf.

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