memory_governance_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and explicitly states the operation is 'non-destructive', which is critical behavioral context. It also clarifies the report covers the current memory.db and includes restore probes, signaling read-only analysis. It does not disclose details about output size or side effects, but the core safety behavior is clearly communicated.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It leads with the verb and key safety qualifier ('non-destructive'), then efficiently enumerates the report's contents. Every phrase adds useful information.

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 description covers the main purpose and contents adequately, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, there is no usage guidance or parameter explanation, and the meaning of 'governance acceptance report' is not elaborated; the tool is complete enough to call with defaults but not fully self-explanatory.

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% and the description never mentions the 'limit' parameter. The parameter itself is a simple defaulted integer, but because the description does not clarify what the limit applies to (e.g., number of samples per section), the agent is left to infer its meaning.

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 specific verb ('Build') and resource ('governance acceptance report over memory.db'), and lists concrete report contents: auto-extract review queue, conflict samples, corrected samples, and restore probes. This makes the tool's function clear and distinct from most siblings, though it does not explicitly name any alternative or exclude other tools.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools like memory_stats, memory_health, or memory_conflicts. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or 'use X instead' instructions.

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