记忆库总览

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only diagnostic via 'Overview with health checks' and enumerates returned metrics, but it never explicitly states that the tool has no side effects or will not mutate the memory store.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core statistics/health-check purpose comes first, followed by a clear invocation trigger and a concise English summary. Every part earns its place.

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 overview tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it provides the trigger phrase, states the tool's scope, and enumerates the returned health-check categories. An agent has what it needs to invoke and interpret the call.

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 and the schema is already 100% covered by an empty properties object. There is no parameter information for the description to add, so the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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 identifies a diagnostic overview of the memory store: '统计 + 体检指标' and lists the health dimensions (suspect duplicates, stale candidates, graduated candidate clusters, pending confirmation, last organization time). This distinguishes it from list_memories and other sibling tools, making the resource and purpose unambiguous.

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 sets the trigger condition: '用户说"看看我的记忆"时先调这个', so an agent knows when to call it first. It does not state negative conditions or compare to siblings by name, but the provided context is enough.

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