memory_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (score, conflict count, stale count, status distribution), which is helpful behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, performance characteristics, or error conditions that might be relevant for a health check operation.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that both earn their place. The first sentence states the purpose and return values, while the second provides usage guidance. There's no wasted language 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 health check tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by specifying what metrics are returned. However, it could be more complete by explaining what the different return values mean (e.g., what constitutes a 'good' score, what conflicts or stale items indicate) or providing more context about the memory system being checked.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'stale_days' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Run a health check') and resource ('on the memory system'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_memories or memory_conflicts. It provides a concrete purpose that is not just a restatement of the tool name.

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 description explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use to audit memory quality'), providing clear context and distinguishing it from other memory-related tools that perform different operations like adding, deleting, or updating memories.

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