Retrieve evidence, impact, and suggested repair for a specific audit finding. Clarifies memory issues identified by an audit to guide corrective action.
Use when a memoryguard_audit finding_id needs its evidence, impact, and suggested repair. Do not use for generic memory lookup or to apply a repair.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workspace | No | workspace path (default: .) | |
| finding_id | Yes | finding id from audit |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns evidence, impact, and suggested repair, and explicitly states it does not apply repairs, reinforcing the non-destructive nature. This goes beyond the annotations by specifying the output content and what it does not do.
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, no filler. The primary usage is stated first, followed by clear exclusions. Every word 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?
For a simple read-only tool with one required parameter, the description covers purpose, usage, exclusions, and return content (evidence, impact, repair). Annotations cover safety. Nothing essential 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% and both parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds meaning by clarifying that finding_id comes from a memoryguard_audit and that the tool explains the finding's evidence/impact/repair, which enriches the schema's minimal 'finding id from audit' with usage context.
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: it explains a memoryguard_audit finding by providing evidence, impact, and suggested repair. It explicitly differentiates from generic memory lookup and repair application, making its scope unambiguous relative to the sibling tools.
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 explicitly says when to use it (for audit findings needing explanation) and when not to (not for generic lookup or repair). However, it does not name specific alternative tools, only implies them. It could be improved by pointing to memory_search or memory_read for lookup, but the exclusion guidance is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.