memory_provider_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real value by implying a read-only operation and explicitly promising "no secrets" are returned (redaction behavior). However it does not say what happens when MEMORY_PROVIDER is unset or how the URL is resolved (env vs. config vs. default), which are the questions this tool exists to answer.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the parenthetical caveat placed where it matters. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs to be trimmed.

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 effectively doubles as the return-value contract (provider name, resolved URL, secrets excluded). The only missing piece is the unset/unresolved case, which is minor.

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 is 4. The description also adds light semantics about the return surface by distinguishing the raw MEMORY_PROVIDER from the "resolved" backend URL, but there are no parameters to explain.

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?

States a specific verb ("Report") and a specific resource (active MEMORY_PROVIDER plus resolved backend URL). It is unambiguously distinct from every sibling, which all perform recall/add/search/export operations rather than diagnostic status reporting, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this to discover which memory backend is in effect, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no preconditions, and no alternatives named. For a simple diagnostics tool this is minimally adequate.

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