memoryguard_scan_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'read-only,' which is the most critical behavioral trait, and it discloses the return shape as 'snapshot + coverage ledger' plus the completeness invariant. This is strong, though it could go further by describing what the snapshot contains or how to interpret a nonzero unaccounted_count.

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 contain zero filler. The most important facts—read-only behavior and output type—are front-loaded, and the completeness guarantee is stated concisely.

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 tool with zero required parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid level of context: it names the output, states the safety profile, and highlights the key result constraint. It does not elaborate on the structure of the snapshot or coverage ledger, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap rather than a severe one.

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%, and the only parameter, workspace, is already documented as 'workspace path (default: .)'. The description adds nothing about the parameter, but because the schema fully covers its semantics, the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run a read-only scan and return snapshot + coverage ledger.' It clearly conveys what the tool produces and even names a key output guarantee. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like memoryguard_audit or memoryguard_diagnostics_snapshot, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 phrase 'Proves scan completeness (unaccounted_count must be 0)' gives a clear purpose: this is the tool to use when verifying that a scan has fully accounted for all items. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the intended verification context is reasonably clear.

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