memory_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' and 'Returns' clearly imply a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the listed return categories describe observable behavior. It does not discuss auth or side effects, but for a zero-parameter status endpoint this is a minor gap.

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 only two short sentences, with the primary action front-loaded and the return payload summarized immediately. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 no-argument introspection tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose and the categories of returned data. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 4 and no parameter-level documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are required.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('current status of the memory system') and enumerates exactly what is returned (database health, chunk counts, embedding model info). This clearly differentiates it from the mutation-oriented sibling tools recall/remember/forget/purge_forgotten/move_memory.

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?

The intended use is obvious: call this when you need the memory system's current health and statistics. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the sibling tools are all memory operations, so the context makes the choice unambiguous.

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