Memory Maintenance Status

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) by stating it shows information. However, it does not add behavioral context beyond what annotations already convey, such as the fact that it is safe and non-destructive. No contradictions.

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 that efficiently lists what the tool shows. It is concise but could be slightly more structured (e.g., categorizing items), though it remains clear and front-loaded.

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 no parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's output content. It could be more complete by briefly explaining the meaning of 'lock state' or 'recent reports,' but it is sufficient for a status overview.

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?

With no parameters, the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds value by enumerating the output components (providers, schedule, artifacts, etc.), providing more meaning than the empty input schema alone.

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 shows various maintenance status components like providers, schedule, artifacts, archives, reports, and lock state. It uses the verb 'Show' and enumerates specific items, making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory.maintenance_run which likely performs maintenance actions.

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?

While the description implies this tool is for viewing maintenance status, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like memory.schedule_status or memory.maintenance_run. No usage context or exclusions are provided, relying on the tool name and sibling context to guide selection.

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