Audit what's stored (glass-box)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds detail about output contents (provenance, trust, tier, last use, fade) and that it returns ledger rows. No contradictions.

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?

Two short sentences plus an Args line. Front-loaded with main purpose, no filler. Every sentence adds value.

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 read-only audit tool with one parameter and annotations covering safety, the description explains the output sufficiently. Doesn't mention ordering or pagination, but limit parameter covers row control.

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?

Only parameter 'limit' with description 'Max rows' is already fully described in schema (100% coverage). Description adds 'default 30' which is also in schema. No extra meaning beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states it shows a transparent ledger of all memories with provenance, trust, tier, last use, and fade info. Distinguishes from siblings like mindmap_list (which likely lists without audit details) and mindmap_search (which searches).

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?

Explicitly gives use cases: user asks 'what do you know about me?', 'what's stored?', or wants to review/clean memory. Does not explicitly exclude cases where other tools might be better, but the context is clear.

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