memo_provenance

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing the type of metadata returned and noting that unknown ids return null, which is consistent with 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?

Two sentences: first clearly states purpose, second provides usage context and specifics. Every word is valuable; no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns (provenance metadata). It addresses the key use case without missing critical details.

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?

The schema description for the 'id' parameter is already detailed (full 32-char hex or unique prefix, git-style, returns null for unknown). The description repeats this without adding meaningful new information, so 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 clearly states the tool returns provenance metadata for a memory, specifying the kinds of information (origin, lineage, file path, audit details). It mentions usage before trusting, editing, or citing, but could more explicitly distinguish from similar tools like memo_get or memo_history.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use: with a full id or unique prefix when needing audit details before trusting, editing, or citing. This sets context, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or offer direct sibling comparisons.

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