memory_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses ordering ('newest first'), default limit (50), the entry contents (timestamps, affected IDs, operation details), and failure behavior ('Query failures return an error result'). What it does not state explicitly is read-only/non-mutating nature, though 'inspect' and 'queries existing audit records' strongly imply 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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the sibling disambiguation, then return shape, then failure mode. Nearly every clause adds information; only the restated limit default overlaps the schema.

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 no output schema, the description still describes the return shape (ordered entries with timestamps, IDs, details) and the error case, and the two filter parameters are fully covered by the schema. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying that operation filtering is by 'exact operation name' (exact-match semantics the schema only calls 'operation type') and restates the 50 default for limit, giving an agent confident guidance on filter strictness.

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 ('Inspect recorded memory operations') with the intent ('explain a change or verify its history'), and names the sibling it is not (memory_diagnose). An agent can distinguish it from the other ~50 memory tools without opening a schema.

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 an explicit use context ('explain a change or verify its history') and an explicit exclusion with the alternative named: 'use memory_diagnose for current consistency checks.' Nothing is left to inference.

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