Check memory engine health

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by detailing the return contents (running status, stored-memory count, semantic search availability) and specifying it returns a small JSON object. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, each earning its place. The first delivers purpose and content, the second gives usage and return type. No extraneous words, front-loaded structure.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately conveys the return value (small JSON status object with specific fields). For a simple health-check tool with zero parameters, this is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not need to add parameter semantics; baseline 4 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 clearly states that the tool reports the local Yggdrasil memory engine's health, listing specific metrics (running status, stored-memory count, semantic search availability). The verb 'report' and resource 'health' are precise, and the tool is easily distinguished from sibling tools focused on bootstrap, materialize, recall, remember, and search.

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?

Explicitly advises to call this tool first when other ygg_* tools fail, providing a clear, actionable use case. This guidance helps the agent decide when to invoke it, even though it does not list when not to use it, the directive is sufficient for this diagnostic tool.

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