memory_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It enumerates the specific dimensions of status returned, which gives the agent a concrete understanding of the tool's output. It doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior or side effects, but 'status' strongly implies a non-mutating operation, and the list of status items adds valuable context beyond the tool name.

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?

The description is a single, telegraphic sentence that front-loads the resource ('Vault status') and efficiently lists all covered status aspects. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. The enumeration of status aspects (lock state, counts, packs, model, index, RAM, audit head) provides sufficient context for an agent to select the tool, though it assumes domain familiarity with terms like 'packs' and 'audit head'.

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 parameter semantics are trivial. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters for the description to explain, and the input schema is completely empty, so no additional parameter information 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 clearly identifies the tool as reporting 'Vault status' and enumerates specific aspects (lock state, counts, packs, model, index, RAM, audit head). While it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', the resource and scope are unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools that store, search, lock, or list.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The phrasing implies usage when vault status is needed, but doesn't state exclusions or mention when to prefer other tools such as memory_get or memory_selftest. The context is clear enough for a status check, but not explicitly differentiated.

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