memory_verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the mechanism (citation-chain tracing) and the return payload (provenance plus confidence scores), but says nothing about side effects, read-only nature, permission requirements, or cost/latency of the trace.

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, both front-loaded and free of filler: the first states the action and method, the second states the return value. Every sentence 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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully summarizes the return (provenance and confidence scores). Given the low parameter complexity and no annotations, it is nearly complete, lacking only a note on read-only behavior or permission needs.

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 schema already documents both parameters, including the '*' cross-project option. The description only corroborates the id semantics (memory or observation ID) and adds nothing beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (verify) and resource (memory or observation) plus the mechanism (tracing the citation chain to source observations and session context). This distinguishes it from retrieval siblings like memory_recall, though it does not explicitly name the closest alternative such as memory_graph_provenance_reconcile.

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?

The description implies the scenario (when you need to check whether a memory is grounded in source observations), but never states when to prefer it over other verification or provenance tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, so usage is inferred rather than guided.

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