memory_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Return' and the informational nature of the content indicate this is a read-only introspection call, and the FTS availability note adds useful runtime context. It does not explicitly state that there are no side effects or mention potential error conditions, but for a zero-argument schema utility this is a reasonable baseline.

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 with no filler, the main action is front-loaded, and the extra detail about FTS availability is a distinct piece of useful information. Every part of the sentence 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 introspection tool with an output schema available, the description is nearly complete: it states both what is returned and a non-obvious detail (FTS availability). It could be slightly richer by clarifying that this is the standard entry point for schema questions or by expanding 'CP Memory,' but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter meaning left for the description to add. This matches the baseline for tools with no parameters.

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 a specific resource ('CP Memory schema explanations'), and adds a distinct secondary output ('whether FTS is available'). This makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like memory_explain or memory_inspect, which focus on individual memory entries rather than the overall schema.

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 when to use the tool: when an agent needs schema explanations or needs to know whether FTS is available. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it and does not mention alternatives among the many memory_* sibling tools, so the usage context is only implicit.

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