memory_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the status facets (enabled categories, scope, retention, effort, stored data), but does not disclose authorization requirements, rate limits, or data freshness.

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 compact sentence with no wasted language, front-loading the core idea that this reports what memory is currently allowed to do.

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?

With an output schema present and zero parameters, the description does not need to explain return values in detail. It sufficiently covers the scope of the status report, though it could state more explicitly when an agent should call it relative to other memory 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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the fact that it is a zero-argument status query, which is implicit from 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 identifies a specific resource—current memory permission/status—and enumerates the facets it reports: enabled categories, scope, retention, effort, and stored data. It is clearly more than a tautology, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings memory_recall or memory_request_access.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would check this before attempting memory operations. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not name the alternative tools memory_recall or memory_request_access.

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