brain_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds value by disclosing exactly what information is returned, including database storage path, contradicting none of the annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get system diagnostics...') and then efficiently lists the specific return categories. Every element earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 simple, parameterless, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent needs to know: the diagnostic scope and each returned data category. The annotations cover side-effect safety, so nothing critical is missing.

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 properties are empty, so schema description coverage is effectively 100%. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4; the description appropriately adds no parameter details.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('system diagnostics, memory statistics, multi-agent breakdown, and validation health'). It also enumerates concrete return contents, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from the action-oriented sibling names like brain_prune, brain_learn, and brain_validate.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool: whenever an agent needs system-level diagnostics or memory/validation health. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with brain_validate, which could plausibly overlap with 'validation counts' and 'contradiction flags.' No exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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