万忆记忆自检

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the behavioral scope by listing the health dimensions it evaluates. The term '检测' implies a read-only diagnostic operation, and the enumerated status checks give the agent a concrete sense of what will be inspected, though side effects and output format are not detailed.

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 a single compact line that front-loads the core purpose and then compactly lists the specific checks. There is no redundant or filler 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?

For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool, the description covers the essential information: what is being checked and at what level (full-library). It does not specify output format or performance cost, but given the simplicity of the tool this is a minor 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's checks instead of parameter details.

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 ('检测') and resource ('全库健康度') and enumerates the exact aspects checked: total memory count, layer distribution, index status, FTS status, and graph status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on operations like recording, recalling, or searching.

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 implies the tool is for diagnosing overall memory health, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is inferable from the content but not directly guided.

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