Saved items

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it lists the kinds of saved items, the fields each item exposes, and clarifies that recordings include interval, number of records, and duration. It does not describe pagination, error behavior, or response format, but it substantially improves behavioral understanding.

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 and dense, with no filler sentences. The long parenthetical listing fields is somewhat hard to parse, but every clause conveys relevant structure. It is appropriately sized for the amount of return-shape information it needs to convey.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly by enumerating item kinds and fields. It also explains the index relationship to download_recording. Minor gaps remain around pagination and error responses, but the definition is complete enough for an agent to understand what memory returns.

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 single parameter max_wall has complete schema description coverage, including its default and timeout behavior. The description does not mention max_wall or add any meaning beyond the schema. With 100% coverage, the schema carries parameter semantics adequately, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that this tool reports what is saved in the meter's memory, enumerating counts, measurements, MIN MAX sessions, peak sessions, and trend recordings with their fields. It distinguishes the index from the record-fetching behavior of download_recording. The purpose is clear, though it reads more as a data inventory than a crisp verb-resource statement.

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 by explaining that download_recording fetches the records of a recording, while this tool provides the index and item metadata. It does not explicitly state when to call memory versus status, read, or query, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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