Inspect memory file sizes, line counts, last-modified dates, and backup usage to gauge overall memory state before organizing or recalling—read-only, no content judgment.
记忆体检（只读）：返回各记忆文件的体积、行数/条数、最后修改时间与距今天数，JOURNAL 的首末时间与今日新增条数，以及备份文件占用。适合在整理记忆前、或回答「你记不记得某件事」之前先看整体状态——它只量尺寸，不判断内容重要性、不动任何文件。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full safety burden — and it does: 'read-only', 'never touches any files', and 'does not judge content importance'. That discloses the non-destructive profile and the limits of what it measures. It stops short of describing freshness/pagination concerns, so a 4 rather than a 5.
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 dense sentence that front-loads purpose and return contents, then adds when-to-use and the boundary. Every clause maps to returned fields or usage guidance, though the enumeration of fields is long enough that it could be trimmed had an output schema not existed.
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 zero params, a full output schema, and a read-only measurement tool, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is measured, when to use it, and what it will not do. The minor remaining gap is whether 'today's new entry count' depends on a timezone or clock, which the agent must infer.
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?
There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing about invocation is ambiguous; the description correctly enumerates the returned fields instead of wasting space on nonexistent arguments.
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 gives a specific verb (returns), an explicit resource (memory file sizes, line/entry counts, modification times, JOURNAL timestamps, backup usage), and marks itself read-only. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling memory_read / memory_append / memory_update tools, since it only measures metadata and never returns or changes content.
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?
It gives two concrete situations to call it: before organizing memory, and before answering "do you remember X". It also states the negative scope — it does not judge content importance — which implicitly routes content questions to memory_search. It does not name the alternatives explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.