Check Memory Read Scope Authorization

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing a critical behavioral trait: standalone the tool only echoes the requested scope, and real enforcement (denying cross-tenant/cross-agent access) occurs only under hosted governance. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent must know before invoking it.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and then the caveat in one dense but well-structured statement with zero filler. The em-dash aside is slightly awkward but every clause carries 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?

For a single-parameter gate with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed: what it does, when it is meaningful, and the enforcement outcome. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: the requested memory_scope is compared against the caller's authority's memory_scope constraint, clarifying the semantics of the value beyond the schema's example string.

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 ('Gate a read from persistent agent memory') and clearly separates itself from the read path. The name and description make its role as a pre-read authorization gate unambiguous, and the sibling rai_memory_write_check is implicitly distinguished by the 'read' framing.

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?

Explicitly explains the two contexts: standalone it is a no-op that echoes the scope, and it only enforces when governance is enabled on the hosted MCP server. This tells the agent when the tool matters versus when calling it is pointless. It stops short of naming the sibling tool or stating exclusions directly.

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