memory_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses read-only behavior, non-trivial cost, algorithmic complexity (O(400 x n)), measured performance at different store sizes, run-to-run variance, and that the 'at-a-glance' label refers to output, not latency.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then provides critical cost/performance caveats, and finishes with a practical alternative consideration. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure guides the agent through selection, cost awareness, and invocation.

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 complex, potentially expensive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, read-only nature, parameter meaning, and what output categories to expect. It lacks an explicit return format, but the listed output dimensions give enough context for an agent to decide whether to invoke it.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter, and it does: dup_threshold defines the minimum similarity threshold for likely duplicates. It adds contextual meaning beyond the bare schema by connecting the threshold to the duplicate estimation behavior, though it does not specify range or sensitivity guidance.

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The description clearly states the tool's purpose: an inspector overview of memory contents, including active/superseded counts, duplicates, and integrity posture. It is specific about the resource and output, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling report tools.

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 gives strong usage context: it is a read-only store-health view, and it explicitly warns that it is expensive and should not be used just for simple counts. However, it does not name alternative tools that might be cheaper for those count-only needs.

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