get_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implicitly reveals a safe, read-only, zero-argument inspection operation and discloses the exact fields returned, which is useful given there is no output schema. It does not mention permission requirements, cost, or freshness guarantees for the reported values, so a moderate score is warranted.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that gets to the point immediately, and every listed item is informative because there is no output schema to enumerate them. Slightly list-heavy but none of it is wasted.

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, no-output-schema status tool, the description adequately covers what the agent gets back (the enumerated stats) and how to treat the call. Missing only when to prefer it over the sibling context tools.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. This is the correct ceiling for a no-argument tool.

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 states a specific resource (cortexmem) and enumerates exactly what the tool reports: total chunks, type breakdown, storage location, last init time, last indexed commit. It's clearly a read-only status/inspection tool, distinguishable from the save/get/summarize context siblings. No sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool versus the alternatives (save_context, get_context, summarize_session), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the fact that it reports status.

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