memory_maintenance_status

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, it discloses that the tool reads the namespace DB directly, never builds the embedder/reranker, and does not call _mem(). This explains the performance and safety characteristics.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose, the second adds a critical behavioral guarantee. It is dense but every sentence contributes value.

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?

With one well-documented parameter, a detailed schema, and an output schema present, the description covers the essential usage context and an important behavioral constraint. No gaps are apparent.

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 schema already provides a rich description of the namespace parameter (100% coverage), and the description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond referencing 'namespace' in the main text. Baseline 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and names the resource ('maintenance ledger') with details ('runs + pending proposals'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like memory_maintenance_run. It references section §6.3, adding precision.

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 explicitly positions the tool as MODEL-FREE by contract, explaining that checking maintenance status should never trigger a ~2 GB model download. This implies when to prefer this tool, though it doesn't name alternative tools explicitly.

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