memoryguard_explain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but 'explain' strongly implies a read-only action and the listed output fields give an idea of what the tool returns. It does not explicitly state that no state is modified, nor does it mention any prerequisites or error behavior, which prevents 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's core purpose and the relevant output dimensions without excess words or repetition.

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/explain tool, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, the action, and the expected explanatory fields. It does not explicitly clarify the source of the finding or the relationship to the audit workflow, but the schema's finding_id description covers the key input requirement.

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%, with both finding_id and workspace already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('explain') and a clear resource ('a finding'), and lists the exact content it covers: evidence, impact, suggestion, and confidence. It is distinguishable from siblings like codegraph_explain, though it does not explicitly say the finding comes from the audit tool.

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 tool is used when you have a finding_id and want to understand its evidence, impact, suggestion, or confidence. It does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives such as reading the finding directly or using codegraph_explain.

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