Inspect Memory Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description largely restates these (read-only, idempotent, no state modification, no network access). It adds no information beyond the structured hints, but it also contradicts nothing, so 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by usage and safety context. No filler and nothing repeated needlessly.

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?

The operation is parameterless, an output schema exists to describe the return shape, and annotations cover the safety profile; nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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; per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool has a 4 baseline. The description correctly avoids inventing inputs.

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 (Return) and enumerates the exact resources covered (memory, checkpoint, index, recovery status for the current project), which is well beyond a restatement of the name "status". It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from the operational siblings like resume or checkpoint, so it lands just under a 5.

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?

"Use for diagnostics and health checks" gives a clear context for invoking it, implicitly steering the agent away from action-oriented siblings such as remember or resume. There are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, which keeps it from a 5.

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