memo_federation_preview

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only and idempotent. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'preview' entails). It does not contradict annotations.

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. It is concise, but the brevity sacrifices clarity on parameters and usage. No extraneous content, but could benefit from expanding on parameter semantics within the same length.

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?

Despite the tool having only one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description fails to clarify the input or what the output contains. The purpose is clear, but practical usage details are missing, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke 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 0%, yet the description does not explain the 'principal' parameter. The term 'principal' is ambiguous (e.g., ACL identifier, user identity). No format or allowed values are suggested, leaving the agent with little guidance beyond the schema's type.

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 'Preview the exact memories an ACL would allow into a signed bundle' clearly states the tool's action (preview) and resource (memories). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like memo_save or memo_delete, but could be more explicit about the concept of a 'signed bundle'.

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 alternatives (e.g., memo_search, memo_get). No conditions or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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