memory_status

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full responsibility. It clearly states the kinds of information returned, indicating a read-only query. No side effects are mentioned, and the description is consistent with the tool's name. Could be improved by noting that it does not modify data.

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, efficient sentence that lists all relevant output items without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given the low complexity (one optional parameter, simple output), the description is fully adequate. It covers the tool's scope and output content comprehensively, despite the absence of an output schema.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'project', so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides (absolute path, optional, defaults to current project).

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: viewing the overall status of the project knowledge base, listing specific metrics (entry count, last update, expired entries, namespace distribution). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like memory_list and memory_get, which focus on individual entries or lists, not aggregated status.

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 usage for checking aggregated knowledge base status, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_list or memory_get. It provides context about the optional project parameter but lacks direct guidance on selection criteria.

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