memoryguard_rule_scope_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does explicitly state 'Read-only', which is an important non-mutating guarantee. However, it does not disclose what the workspace parameter changes or what the returned statistics/policy look like.

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 with no filler; the action and resource are front-loaded, and 'Read-only' adds necessary safety information. 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?

The tool itself is simple, with one optional parameter and no output schema, so a brief description is acceptable. Still, the description leaves ambiguity about workspace scoping and does not explain the contents of the 'automatic scope policy', making it only minimally viable.

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%, and the description never mentions the 'workspace' parameter. The parameter name is a weak hint, but the description must compensate for the undocumented schema and does not.

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 'Read' and names concrete resources ('rule audience statistics and the automatic scope policy'), making the primary purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like memoryguard_rule_decision_read, but the resource mention narrows the intent well.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling rule tools such as memoryguard_rule_decision_read or memoryguard_rule_undo. There are no context cues, prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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