memory_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds specific behavioral context by enumerating exactly what information is returned (active count, total records, vector index status), which helps the agent set expectations for the response. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action 'View memory system status' followed by a colon-separated list of returned items. It is concise, structured, and every word adds value, with no fluff or 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?

Given no parameters, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what the tool does and what it returns. The listed status fields provide enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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, and the schema's empty properties object confirms this. Since there are no parameters, the description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly omits any parameter discussion, which 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to view memory system status. It lists specific pieces of information it returns (active count, total records, vector index status), making it distinct from siblings like memory_search, memory_add, etc., which perform operations rather than status checks.

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 context is clear: this is a read-only status tool, and an agent would naturally use it to inspect memory system state. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the verb 'View' and the listed data imply it's for checking status, not for mutation or search. This provides clear context without exclusions.

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