memoryguard_audit

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful context beyond those: the audit targets local V2 reference integrity and is deliberately not a general memory/quality inspection. It does not describe the audit's exact output shape, but the annotation burden is low.

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 short sentences carry the primary use case, the timing, and the key exclusions. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 tool is simple, has one optional parameter, and its safety profile is covered by annotations. The only gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not indicate what the audit returns or how its result is reported.

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?

The only parameter, workspace, is fully described in the schema with a default value, so the description does not need to repeat it. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific action ('checking local V2 reference integrity') and a clear scope ('local V2') with an explicit timing ('before repair or release'). The exclusions ('Do not use to read a memory record, modify data, or assess general Agent quality') distinguish it from its siblings.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('before repair or release') and an explicit when-not-to-use list covering reading, modifying, and general quality assessment. This is unambiguous routing guidance even though sibling tool names are not repeated.

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