memory_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden, and 'Service health' implicitly conveys a read-only, non-mutating operation plus what the report covers. However, it does not explicitly state that no state is modified, whether authentication is required, or any failure/error behavior.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Service health') and packs the key report contents into a tight list. Every word earns its place with no filler 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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does well by naming what the health report includes, effectively substituting for return-value documentation. The only real gap is ambiguity in 'counts' (counts of what?), but overall an agent can call this tool correctly with no further information.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description confirms this with 'No parameters,' which matches the empty input schema exactly; there is nothing more to add.

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 reports service health and enumerates its scope (storage path, counts, search backend, version). The purpose is distinct from its operation-oriented siblings like memory_add and memory_clear, though it never names them or explicitly positions itself against them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no indication of ordering (e.g., checking health before other memory operations). The phrase 'No parameters' merely restates schema information rather than providing use-case guidance.

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