lcm_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does communicate that this is a non-mutating inspection covering two axes (health and storage), which is enough to signal low risk, but it says nothing about cost, permissions, or whether the check can fail or time out.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource and the two status dimensions, and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure economy.

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 zero-param diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves open what 'health and storage' actually returns (index size? record count? backend availability?). It is adequate to recognize the tool but not complete enough to predict its response.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. The description adds no param detail because none is needed.

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 names a specific resource (the codex-lcm memory database) and a specific concern (health and storage status), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling retrieval tools like lcm_grep or lcm_recall. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous.

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 statement of when to call this versus the other lcm_* tools, nor any precondition such as 'call before lcm_recall to check the index is healthy'. Usage is only inferable from the word 'status' in the name and description.

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