mempalace_kg_check

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 behavioral context by stating the checks are 'deterministic' and enumerating the three reliability dimensions. It also clarifies the tool's boundary ('not broad contradiction detection'). No contradiction 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?

The description is two sentences: the first states the exact purpose and scope, the second provides a critical boundary. No filler or redundancy. 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 has a full output schema, comprehensive parameter descriptions, and safety annotations. The description, while brief, fully informs an agent of what the tool does and what it does not do. No additional return-value explanation is needed due to the output schema. The boundary statement prevents misuse.

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?

All 8 parameters have complete descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), including purpose and constraints for each. The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific guidance, but with high schema coverage, a baseline of 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 opens with 'Run deterministic KG reliability checks' and enumerates three specific check types (active conflicts, stale current-state facts, source drawer provenance warnings). It also explicitly says 'This is not broad contradiction detection,' distinguishing it from sibling tools. This is a specific verb+resource+scope with clear sibling differentiation.

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 gives a clear when-not-to-use exclusion ('This is not broad contradiction detection') and implies the tool is for targeted reliability checks. However, it does not name an alternative tool or provide explicit usage scenarios such as 'use when validating KG consistency after writes.' Context is mostly clear but lacks a distinct alternative recommendation.

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