trusted_memory_explain

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure; it does add that the result includes evidence and admission history. However, it does not explicitly state that this is read-only, how authorization is enforced, or what happens when the memory is not authorized.

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 filler; every phrase contributes purpose or scope. It could have added more detail, but the structure itself is economical.

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 six-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this one-liner is under-specified. It lacks parameter guidance, usage conditions, and behavioral constraints, so an agent would need to infer 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only implicitly covers memory_id via 'one authorized memory'. It does not explain clearance, tenant_id, groups_json, principal_id, or projects_json, all of which appear relevant to authorization context and are left to inference.

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 states a specific action ('Explain'), a specific resource ('one authorized memory'), and distinctive outputs ('evidence and admission history'). This makes it distinguishable from sibling tools like trusted_memory_recall or search_memory, which would not be expected to provide explanatory provenance.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over trusted_memory_recall, trusted_memory_conflicts, search_memory, or company_memory_get. The description does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or the type of query that should route here instead of to a sibling.

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