Basic Memory Diagnostics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for details annotations cannot express: config file contents are returned with secrets redacted, and it never emits secrets or API keys — the key behavioral concern for a tool that dumps configuration. It slightly restates read-only, but the redaction guarantee is genuinely additive.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then a scannable bullet list of what is returned, then a use-case line. Every element earns its place except the trailing 'Read-only', which merely echoes readOnlyHint=true already in the annotations.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so by enumerating the diagnostic sections. It stops short of indicating the response shape (structured object vs. formatted text) or approximate payload size, which is a minor gap for a config-dumping tool.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly signals a no-argument invocation by omission, and 'additionalProperties: false' in the schema confirms no inputs are accepted.

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?

Specific verb-and-resource pairing: 'Return version, system, and configuration diagnostics for Basic Memory', followed by an explicit enumeration of the payload (package version, Python/platform, config path and contents, BASIC_MEMORY_* env vars). No sibling tool in the list is a diagnostics tool, so it is unambiguously distinguishable from the note/project/schema tools.

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?

Names a concrete use case — 'troubleshooting installations and gathering information for support requests' — which tells the agent when to reach for it. It does not state exclusions or name an alternative, but no sibling overlaps with this behavior, so the omission is low-risk.

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