memoryguard_memory_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value by enumerating what the status covers (metrics categories), but does not disclose additional behavior such as freshness of counts, failure modes, or return structure. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The primary use case is front-loaded, followed immediately by a clear exclusion. Every word contributes.

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 simple read-only status tool with zero required parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the essential return categories (availability, scope, counts) so an agent knows what to expect. Minor gap: no hint about return shape or whether counts are live, but the metric list largely covers the agent's needs.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single optional parameter agent_instance_id is already documented as an 'optional identity consistency check.' The description adds no parameter detail, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is correct per the rubric.

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 states a clear purpose: checking shared-memory availability, scope, record counts, lifecycle/kind counts, and evidence-link counts. It differentiates from siblings via 'Do not use to search or read individual memory content,' which maps to memory_read and memory_search, though it doesn't name those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context ('Use when checking shared-memory availability...') and an explicit exclusion ('Do not use to search or read individual memory content'). It stops short of a 5 because it doesn't name the sibling tools to use instead, leaving the routing slightly implicit.

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