trusted_memory_inbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'List' clearly signals a read-only enumeration and the status scope is stated. Still, it does not disclose authorization needs, pagination/limit behavior, or what the returned items look like, which matters given there is no output schema.

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 or repetition. It communicates the core action and scope efficiently, though its brevity does leave semantic gaps covered elsewhere.

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 8 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many overlapping sibling tools, the description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. An agent cannot tell how clearance, tenant/project, groups, or principal filters affect results, nor what the default call returns.

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 none of the 8 parameters (limit, query, clearance, tenant_id, project_id, groups_json, principal_id, projects_json) are explained in the description. The status language ('candidate', 'quarantined', 'authorized') only loosely hints at filtering and does not map clearly to specific parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a concrete resource ('Trusted Memory items'), and narrows the scope to candidate and quarantined statuses, which helps distinguish it from siblings like trusted_memory_recall or trusted_memory_search. It is not a 5 because 'authorized' is ambiguous and no sibling is explicitly named.

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 phrase 'candidate and quarantined' implies this is the tool for enumerating pending or flagged Trusted Memory items, so the usage context is roughly inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison to siblings such as trusted_memory_review, trusted_memory_conflicts, or list_intake.

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