memoryguard_enrichment_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates that the tool reads queue status and returns pending/applied counts, and it adds useful context about the residual-enrichment role. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, describe the response shape, or mention any potential limitations or side effects.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. The main action and output are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds valuable routing context without redundancy.

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 relatively simple status-check tool with three optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what counts are exposed and how the tool fits into the enrichment lifecycle. It could have elaborated on how this differs from similar enrichment-related siblings, but that is not a blocking gap.

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%, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The schema already documents workspace, share_group_id, and agent_instance_id with clear semantics, so the 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 states a specific action ('Check'), a clear resource ('enrichment queue status'), and the precise output ('pending/applied counts'). It also differentiates itself from build_projection by positioning this tool as the residual-status companion rather than the primary enrichment path.

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 explicitly notes that primary enrichment happens inside build_projection and that this tool should be used to see residuals, giving the agent a clear when-to-use signal. It does not explicitly mention sibling tools like list_pending_enrichments or apply_enrichments, so it stops short of fully routing among all alternatives.

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