memoryguard_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Reads only V2 manifest state and registry metadata; requires no memory binding or source access.' This explains what exactly is read and what prerequisites are absent, going beyond the annotations to clarify side-effect-free execution.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and scope, the second provides crisp usage directives. Every phrase earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 read-only discovery tool with six optional parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, scope, prerequisites, and usage patterns. It doesn't describe the response format, but given the tool's nature (listing capabilities), the agent can infer reasonable output. The absence of an output schema doesn't leave a critical gap.

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 100%, so all six parameters are individually documented. The description adds usage semantics that the schema lacks: it specifies pagination strategy (operation/query plus offset) and advises to use include_schema only for a selected page. This helps the agent understand how to combine parameters effectively, adding value beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: discovering registered MCP operations and GUI operations with their headless availability. It specifies the resource (operations) and the action (discover), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that perform memory operations or audits. The mention of reading V2 manifest state and registry metadata further clarifies scope.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use operation/query plus offset pagination; request include_schema=true only for a selected page.' This tells the agent how to navigate results efficiently and when to include schemas. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives, but the nature of the tool (capabilities discovery) is distinct from siblings, so the context is clear enough.

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