SQLite Project Memory MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool reports but doesn't describe how it works: whether it's a read-only diagnostic, if it requires specific permissions, what format the output takes, or if it has performance implications. For a health-check tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 - a single sentence that efficiently lists the three report categories. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose. There's zero waste or redundancy in this compact description.

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 that there's an output schema (which should document return values), the description's main job is to explain purpose and usage. It adequately states what the tool reports but lacks context about when to use it versus siblings, and with no annotations, it doesn't address behavioral aspects. For a diagnostic tool with output schema, this is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 description mentions no parameters at all, while the schema has one parameter ('limit') with 0% description coverage. Since schema_description_coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but doesn't. The baseline is 3 because the tool has only one parameter, but the description adds no semantic information about what 'limit' controls or how it affects the health report.

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 tool's purpose: to report three specific types of issues (duplicates, low-quality records, retention pressure) in project memory. It uses specific verbs ('report') and identifies the resource ('project memory'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_architecture_summary' or 'get_recent_activity' that might also provide health-related insights.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_architecture_summary', 'get_recent_activity', and 'prune_content_retention' that might address similar concerns, there's no indication of when this specific health report is appropriate versus other diagnostic or maintenance tools.

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