memory_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Return' implies a read-only operation, which is some signal, but the description discloses nothing else—no side-effect profile, no mention of what 'active task' refers to, no cost or failure caveats. Minimal value beyond what the phrase 'health' already suggests.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler. 'Return' leads, and the four returned data items are packed into 13 words. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with an output schema, the description need not document return structure, and the four returned domains are stated. However, the unexplained acronym 'CP' and the absence of any routing guidance across 38 siblings leave the description minimally viable but incomplete for confident selection.

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 0 parameters, so the schema already documents everything and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter noise, and names the four data domains it returns, which meaningfully orients the agent toward the output.

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 ('Return') and names four concrete resources: CP Memory health, migration state, FTS state, and active task. This is clear and specific, not a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like memory_stats or memory_maintenance.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_stats, memory_maintenance, or memory_task_get. Among 38 siblings, an agent is given no decision rule for selecting this tool.

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