Audit memory use

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the output includes guard decision, provenance, history, and attributability score, and notes it is deterministic and requires no LLM.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds essential information without extraneous words.

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?

Despite good purpose and behavioral clarity, the tool lacks output schema and the description omits parameter semantics, leaving the agent with incomplete context for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no explanation for the 3 parameters (query, namespace, intended_use). The agent receives no guidance on parameter meaning or usage, a critical gap.

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 clearly states that the tool produces a compliance audit artifact for a memory-justified use, including the guard decision, provenance, and attributability score. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_memory_use by emphasizing audit trail generation.

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 implies use for formal compliance auditing ('Hand this to an auditor') but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives like check_memory_use.

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