memory_system_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It details each subsystem checked and the output format (green/yellow/red with details and action). It implies a read-only diagnostic behavior but does not explicitly state read-only or mention auth/rate limits.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the health status summary and then lists the six dimensions in bullet-point format. Every sentence serves a purpose with no waste.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the tool's purpose and subsystems thoroughly. The only gap is the unexplained 'conn' parameter, but it's optional and likely minor.

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 input schema has one optional parameter 'conn' with no description (0% coverage), and the tool description does not explain what 'conn' is or how it affects behavior. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Comprehensive system health: green/yellow/red with actionable next steps' and lists six specific health dimensions. This differentiates it from the sibling 'memory_health_check' by being more comprehensive.

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 usage for checking overall system health but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'memory_health_check'. No direct guidance on context or exclusions.

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