Memory Schedule Status

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

The description adds context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) by explicitly stating the tool does not query or mutate the OS scheduler, clarifying its safe and non-interactive nature.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the purpose, with no unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description covers the core behavior adequately, but could be slightly improved by noting the platform parameter's role.

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 sole parameter 'platform' is not mentioned in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description provides no additional meaning beyond the enum values listed in the input 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 clearly states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'configured schedule settings and platform status commands', and it distinguishes this tool from siblings like memory.schedule_environment and memory.schedule_plan by emphasizing it does not query or mutate the OS scheduler.

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 read-only usage by stating 'without querying or mutating the OS scheduler', but it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory.schedule_plan or memory.schedule_environment.

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