memory_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful value by clarifying that no memory content or filesystem paths are revealed, which is real behavioral context. However, it does not describe what 'status' comprises or whether counts are approximate or scoped.

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 the core purpose front-loaded. Every clause earns its place. Slightly penalized only because the brevity comes at the cost of any usage or return-value detail.

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 no output schema, the description must carry the burden of explaining what comes back, and 'status and counts' is vague. It is complete on safety scope and inputs but leaves the return shape underspecified for a tool whose only output is status information.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter ambiguity to resolve, and the description correctly implies no input is required.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: reading non-secret store status and counts, with an explicit scope exclusion ('does not expose memory content or paths'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_graph, search_memories, and memory_history. It stops short of 5 because 'store status and counts' remains slightly abstract about what is actually reported.

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?

No indication of when an agent should call this versus alternatives such as read_graph or memory_history. There are no prerequisites, triggers, or exclusions stated beyond the content-exposure caveat.

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