Semantic search status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the operational state model: entries without a current embedding are lexical-only until the next embed-backfill run, which is a CLI command rather than an MCP tool. That is genuinely useful context an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core readout, then the diagnostic rationale, then routing to siblings. All three sentences carry information, though the rationale sentence is somewhat long and could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description enumerates exactly what the tool reports (active flag, model name, embedded-entry count), which effectively covers the return values. Combined with the routing guidance and the lexical-only caveat, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with 'takes no arguments', correctly signalling that invocation requires no input.

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 (report) and three concrete resources of the readout: whether semantic search is active, the embedding model, and the count of entries with current embeddings. This scope is distinct from the sibling tools it names, so an agent can tell it apart from memory_stats or memory_healthcheck without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly frames the diagnostic scenario ('understand why memory_search finds or misses entries that share no keywords') and names two alternatives with their own conditions: memory_stats for general counts and memory_healthcheck to test that the store works. When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both covered.

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