memoryguard_memory_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the qualifier 'governed record,' which hints at access control or authorization context, but does not elaborate on what governance entails or potential errors. It adds a small amount of behavioral context beyond annotations, but not enough to warrant a higher score.

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 exactly two sentences, with the primary usage condition front-loaded and the exclusion/alternative stated immediately after. There is zero filler, and every word earns its place. It is a model of conciseness.

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-by-ID tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema required, the description is complete. It specifies when to use, when not to use, and the alternative. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke this tool 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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters (memory_id and agent_instance_id), so the schema already documents their purpose. The description does not add any additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation fully.

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 action (reading a memory record) and the specific precondition (exact memory_id already known). It also differentiates from the discovery-oriented sibling memoryguard_memory_search by explicitly naming it as the alternative. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct 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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use when an exact memory_id is already known') and when-not-to-use guidance ('Do not use for discovery'), and directs the agent to the correct alternative (memoryguard_memory_search). This is textbook usage routing with no ambiguity.

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