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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant. The description does add real value beyond annotations by disclosing the shape of the payload (todos, problems, recent decisions, node count, session info), which is not derivable from any structured field.

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 payload contents are front-loaded in the first sentence, which is the right ordering. The standalone 'Read-only.' sentence restates an annotation and is the one piece of avoidable text.

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?

With one optional parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting by describing what the status snapshot contains. The remaining gap is the lack of any note on how it relates to kg_session_info, whose scope it partially overlaps.

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 the single project parameter is already documented as 'Only count and list nodes in this project'. The description adds only that the filter is optional, matching the schema's non-required status — correct but minimal, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (get) and resource (working memory status), then enumerates exactly what the overview contains: todos, problems, decisions, approaches, node count, session info. It does not distinguish itself from the overlapping kg_session_info sibling, which also returns session information, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'Optionally filter by project' is the only usage guidance given; there is no statement of when to prefer this over kg_query or kg_session_info. The intent (a dashboard-style snapshot) is implied by the enumerated contents but never stated as a when-to-use rule.

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