memoryguard_canonical_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly declares the operation read-only and states it works under degraded governance, which is valuable. It also lists the output fields. It does not mention error behavior or whether the status is computed on demand, but for a read-only status check the disclosure is solid.

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 sentences with no filler. The key facts—read-only, target resource, output fields, availability guarantee—are packed efficiently and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, output fields, and the special degraded-governance allowance. It lacks a fuller explanation of what 'canonical reconciliation' means or how this differs from projection_status, but the practical call context is sufficiently covered.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented with defaults. The description adds that share_group_id is the central entity but does not clarify how workspace or share_group_id interact, nor what the resolved binding default means. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles the semantics.

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 identifies a read-only status resource for a share_group_id and enumerates the returned fields (canonical_ready, failures, checks, read_path). It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling status tools like projection_status or memory_status, so it stops short of full differentiation, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 statement 'Always allowed, even when governance is degraded' provides a concrete availability condition and implies this is the right tool when governance is impaired. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over other status/read tools among the many siblings, nor any exclusions.

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