Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the contents of the status, which implies it is a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state side effects, performance implications, or whether it affects any state. It adds useful information about what the tool reports, but omits details like whether it reads from cached data or performs live aggregation.

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 but dense sentence, using a colon to separate the metaphor from the list. It is concise, but the metaphor 'honesty surface' is not immediately intuitive and could mislead. The list is long and runs together, making parsing slightly harder. Overall it is compact but not optimally structured.

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 status tool with no output schema, the description provides a useful enumeration of the kinds of information returned. However, it does not clarify the format of the output (e.g., JSON, text) or any specific caveats (e.g., whether counts are live or cached). Given the complexity of the underlying memory system, more detail on how to interpret the status would improve completeness.

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 single optional parameter 'store' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add anything. It correctly does not repeat schema information. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 indicates this is a status/overview tool by listing the specific categories of information it exposes (counts by state/type/trust, pending conflict judgments, etc.). The metaphor 'honesty surface' is unusual but the enumerated list makes the purpose evident. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like memory_update or memory_forget, which are clearly mutations.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of typical use cases (e.g., checking system health, troubleshooting) or when not to use it. The description simply states what it shows, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and siblings.

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