Reports memory health and capacity metrics—entry counts for three layers, intercepted noise, and dream cycles—returning only numbers, not core impression content.
可塑性记忆的健康度与容量：三层各有多少条、被拦下多少杂讯、做过几次梦。只返回数字，不返回核心印象的内容。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that output is numeric-only and excludes core-impression content, which tells the agent what it will and won't receive. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, side-effect-free, or whether any state is mutated or logged.
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?
A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then enumerates the returned metrics, closing with the key output constraint. 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 simple no-param, no-output-schema read tool this is close to adequate, and it does describe what the numbers represent. But system-specific jargon ('可塑性记忆', '三层', '杂讯') is never grounded, so an agent unfamiliar with the memory model cannot fully interpret the response.
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; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. The description adds no misleading parameter hints, and the schema is trivially complete.
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 the resource (memory health and capacity) and enumerates the specific metrics returned: per-layer counts, blocked noise, and dream count. The clause '只返回数字，不返回核心印象的内容' distinguishes it from content-returning siblings like pm_recall and pm_diary, though it never names a sibling explicitly and the term '三层' is left undefined.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a diagnostic/health-check tool, but there is no explicit statement of when to call it versus pm_trace, pm_compact, or the other pm_* siblings. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.