project_memory_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool checks and lists, implying no side effects, but it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or permissions needed. The behavior is adequately described for a simple status check, but more transparency would help.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action and purpose. Every word earns its place; there is no 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 read-only status tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool checks and what it lists. It could optionally mention the return format, but that is not critical given the simplicity.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters, and their descriptions are clear. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the single parameter 'projectPath'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Check whether this repo is linked to an Obsidian project memory pack and list missing standard notes.' It specifies the verb (check), resource (repo linked to Obsidian project memory pack), and outcome (list missing notes). This is distinct from sibling tools like project_memory_start or project_memory_log_bug.

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 usage context—checking status before taking actions like starting a session or logging. However, it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. The sibling names provide context, but explicit guidance is missing.

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