memory_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the operation is read-only ('Get a summary') and specifies the type of output ('counts by verification status and kind'). However, it does not clarify potential meanings of 'verification status' or 'kind,' nor does it disclose any limitations or side effects. Since this is a zero-parameter read tool, the minimal disclosure is acceptable but not particularly rich.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Get a summary') and efficiently conveys the result type. There is zero waste, and every word contributes meaning.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what it returns ('counts by verification status and kind'). It could be slightly more explicit about the exact response format, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is nearly complete.

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 the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. No additional parameter semantics are required.

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 ('Get a summary') and identifies the resource ('the repo's memory store') and scope ('counts by verification status and kind'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_search or memory_get_for_files, which focus on retrieving individual memories rather than aggregate summaries.

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 clearly implies the tool is for obtaining an overview of the memory store's contents, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions. It provides clear context but lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools.

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