memoryguard_rule_decision_read

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

Annotations are entirely absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the most critical behavioral trait, 'Read-only', which tells an agent this operation will not mutate state. However, it does not cover what happens for an unknown decision_id, whether special permissions are required, or what the response contains, leaving the behavioral picture thin.

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 totaling nine words, with the verb, object, and key identifier front-loaded. The 'Read-only' qualifier is a single trailing phrase that earns its place. There is zero 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?

Adequate for a simple 2-parameter read operation, but gaps remain: the role of workspace is unexplained, there is no output schema so the return shape is undefined, and the domain concept 'explainable rule lifecycle decision' is never defined. An agent can infer basic invocation from 'by decision_id' but must guess about scoping and response expectations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partly does by clarifying that decision_id is the lookup key ('by decision_id'), but it says nothing about the optional workspace parameter, which presumably scopes the read. Meaning is supplied for one of two parameters only.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a resource type ('one explainable rule lifecycle decision'), and the key identifier ('by decision_id'). The trailing 'Read-only' reinforces its non-mutating nature and implicitly separates it from mutation siblings like memoryguard_rule_undo and memoryguard_rule_feedback. It loses a point because 'explainable rule lifecycle decision' is undefined domain jargon and sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It does not reference related sibling tools such as memoryguard_explain or memoryguard_rule_scope_stats, nor does it give any conditions, exclusions, or context for when this read is the right choice.

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