memory_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the tool returns status/statistics and lists specific data points (enabled/disabled, note count, tag count, disk path). This is transparent for a read-only status operation; no side effects are implied or expected.

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, well-structured sentence that packs all essential information. No wasted words, and the parenthetical list of returned fields improves clarity without verbosity.

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?

For a no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description fully specifies what the tool returns and the key data categories. The complexity is low, and the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, and the baseline for no parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none exist, but also doesn't need to. Schema coverage is trivially 100% as there are no properties.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource ('status and statistics of the persistent memory vault'), while listing concrete output fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on vault health/statistics rather than search, read, write, or delete operations.

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 vault status/statistics, which is clear context. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives, but there is no direct alternative among siblings for purely status information, so this is sufficient.

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