palinode_explain

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real value beyond them: missing fields are 'reported as unavailable with the reason, never guessed,' and it warns the output is 'supplied context only — no evidence that anyone acted on it is recorded.' That interpretive caveat is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and then a dense but purposeful enumeration of returned fields, followed by two short caveats. Every clause earns its place, though the long list makes it heavier than a strictly minimal definition.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return contents and does so thoroughly (fields shown, unavailability handling, interpretive limits). Safety is covered by annotations, so the remaining omission is only minor pagination/counting behavior, which the schema handles.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds provenance for bundle_id by tying it to 'the bundle_id a search receipt returned.' The limit parameter is left to the schema, which documents it adequately, so this lands slightly above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (explain) and a tightly scoped resource (one delivery of context keyed by bundle_id), then enumerates exactly what is surfaced: supplied memories, per-record revisions and source-change status, resolved scope, calling surface, dispositions, and coverage qualifiers. The 'delivery of context' scope is distinctive enough against siblings like trace/history/blame that an agent can route correctly.

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 anchors usage clearly: 'given the bundle_id a search receipt returned,' establishing this as the follow-up to a search that produced a receipt. It does not name an alternative sibling or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the explicit when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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