memory_regulation_storage_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must communicate behavioral traits. It explicitly states 'without mutating memory', which is a key safety guarantee. However, it does not mention other side effects, rate limits, or resource implications beyond that.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Inspect') and immediately clarifies the non-mutating nature. It is well-structured and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It provides the essential purpose and the non-mutation guarantee, which suffices for a simple read-only inspection tool. The cryptic resource name is a minor gap, but overall context is adequate.

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 schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed since there are no parameters. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Inspect' and identifies a specific resource ('bounded hierarchical compaction-receipt'), making the primary action clear. It also contrasts with mutating operations via 'without mutating memory', but the resource name is somewhat cryptic, so it is not perfectly clear.

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 phrase 'without mutating memory' implies a read-only use case, but the description does not explicitly name when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide conditions or exclusions. There is minimal guidance on selection.

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