mempalace_get_taxonomy

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context that the taxonomy is 'derived from active drawers' and is 'current tenant-scoped,' which explains the source and scope beyond what annotations provide.

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 with no wasted words. Every phrase ('current tenant-scoped', 'wing and room taxonomy', 'derived from active drawers') carries essential meaning.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully explains what is returned and the underlying data source. No additional behavioral or return details are needed beyond what is already provided.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema already fully documents the absence of inputs. The description adds no parameter detail because none is needed, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4, which is appropriate here.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('current tenant-scoped wing and room taxonomy derived from active drawers'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_wings and list_rooms by emphasizing the derived, tenant-scoped taxonomy.

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 implies usage as a way to obtain the combined taxonomy from active drawers, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like list_wings or list_rooms, nor does it provide exclusions or direct comparisons.

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