memoryguard_neuron_graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is read-only, requires a governance scope, and describes the empty-response shape including possible reason values. This gives the agent meaningful behavioral expectations beyond the schema.

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 sentences with no redundant wording. It front-loads the core action and read-only nature, then gives the scope requirement and a compact return-shape summary. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the scope requirement and the empty-case return value. However, it does not describe the shape of a successful non-empty response, nor does it clarify what 'neuron graph projection' contains or how the response should be interpreted. This is a notable gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by declaring that agent_instance_id or share_group_id is required, even though the schema lists no required parameters and marks them as mutually exclusive. This is a meaningful clarification that helps the agent construct a valid call.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('scoped neuron graph projection'), clearly identifying what the tool operates on. The 'read-only' qualifier reinforces its non-mutating nature. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling read tools such as memoryguard_projection_status or memoryguard_knowledge_read, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 provides an explicit usage prerequisite: the caller must pass either agent_instance_id or share_group_id. This is useful guidance for when the tool can be invoked. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over related alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or fallback options.

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