memory_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' strongly implies a read-only operation, and the listed outputs suggest no mutation. However, it does not explicitly state that no state changes occur, whether permissions are required, or whether the health check performs any active diagnostics.

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 no filler. The verb is front-loaded and each listed item contributes meaning. Every word earns its place, and the structure is easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description needs to convey what the tool returns. It does so by listing four output categories: statistics, health check, active wings, and version info. This is adequate for simple invocation, though the term 'active wings' is domain-specific and not expanded.

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, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. Per the baseline for a zero-parameter tool, the description does not need to compensate for parameter gaps; it simply describes the operation's outputs, which is sufficient.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Get' and names distinct resources: memory system statistics, health check, active wings, and version info. This makes the tool's focus clear and differentiates it from content-oriented siblings like memory_recall or memory_history, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose memory_audit over sibling tools. While the system-level subject matter implies a diagnostic use case, the description does not explicitly state when to run an audit versus when to use memory_history, memory_timeline, or memory_assemble_context.

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