memoryguard_projection_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly says 'Read-only' and 'Always allowed, even when governance is degraded,' disclosing side-effect safety and availability under unusual conditions. It does not describe error behavior or output formatting, but for a simple status read this is solid coverage.

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 front-load the core purpose, list the exact status fields, and then add an availability caveat. Every word contributes to an agent's understanding, with 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: two optional parameters with defaults and no output schema. The description names the return concepts (projection_lag / projection_error / scopes), which is enough for an agent to know what it will receive. It could elaborate on how to interpret those fields, but nothing critical is missing for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 the input schema already documents both parameters with their defaults. The description adds only indirect parameter meaning via 'for a group,' which maps to share_group_id. This matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does most of the work.

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 identifies the resource: 'Read-only projection status (projection_lag / projection_error / scopes) for a group.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools by emphasizing that it is always allowed, even under degraded governance. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'return', so it stops just short of a top score.

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 clear operational guidance: 'Always allowed, even when governance is degraded' tells an agent this is the safe status check when other tools may be blocked. It does not explicitly name an alternative or say when not to use it, but the read-only and always-allowed context is strong enough to guide selection.

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