memoryguard_resolve_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it explicitly states 'Read-only.' This signals no side effects and aligns with the tool's resolver nature. It doesn't detail error behavior when an AgentBinding is missing, but for a simple read-only resolution this is acceptable.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage placement is stated immediately, making the description easy to scan and act on.

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 low-complexity read-only resolver with fully schema-documented parameters, the description provides enough context: what it resolves, why it exists, and when to call it. The lack of an output schema is a minor gap, but the tool name and description make the return concept clear.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds that resolution is 'based on its AgentBinding,' which gives context for agent_instance_id, but it doesn't add significant meaning beyond the parameter descriptions.

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 ('Resolve') and a specific resource ('which share_group_id an agent should write to'), and it explicitly ties the resolution to the AgentBinding. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_write or binding_list, since its single job is to determine the group before writing.

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 gives clear placement guidance: 'Agents should call this before memory_write to know their group.' It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended context is obvious and well-scoped.

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