memoryguard_diagnostics_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does an excellent job: it discloses read-only behavior, the sqlite3 backup mechanism, that DB/WAL files are never copied, that arbitrary SQL and file paths are rejected, and that the tool is always allowed. This gives an agent a clear safety profile.

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?

Three sentences deliver purpose, output contents, safety behavior, and availability without redundancy. The most important scoping fact (read-only diagnostics snapshot) 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?

Given no output schema, the description still names the JSON sections the agent can expect. With only two optional params fully documented in the schema and safety/availability clearly covered, nothing essential for calling or interpreting this tool is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and both optional parameters already have descriptions with defaults, so the baseline applies. The description does not add additional meaning about workspace or share_group_id, but neither is it required given the complete schema coverage.

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 is specific: it states this is a read-only governance diagnostics snapshot and enumerates the exact content areas (reconciliation jobs by status, canonical activation, projection, source links, bindings). This clearly separates it from the many memory, history, binding, and codegraph siblings.

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?

'Always allowed, even when governance is degraded' gives a clear context for when this diagnostic can be run, and the read-only/SQL-free constraints signal safe use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the use context is strong.

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