memory_data_inventory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds the static nature ('Static inventory') and explicitly states 'No live value reads', which reinforces and extends the read-only behavior with useful context about the tool's non-dynamic character. This adds value beyond the annotations.

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?

A single sentence that is fully front-loaded with the core purpose and explicitly disclaims live reads. Every word contributes to understanding, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple, with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description adequately conveys its purpose as a static inventory and mentions the key elements (domains, privacy modes, recommended first calls). It could specify the exact output structure, but given the simplicity and the fact that it's an inventory, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with a detailed description of the privacy_mode parameter. The tool description adds no additional information about the parameter beyond referencing privacy modes, so it does not go beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool provides a static inventory of memory domains, privacy modes, and recommended first calls, and explicitly differentiates it from live data reads. This distinguishes it from siblings like memory_get and memory_list, which likely perform dynamic reads.

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 usage for getting an overview or starting point ('recommended first calls'), but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no naming of sibling tools or exclusion conditions, leaving some ambiguity.

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