memex_health

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 covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: the intended error-recovery sequence and the specific store-wide metrics included in the health check.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states purpose and output content, the second gives usage context, and the third prevents misuse. 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 zero-parameter, read-only health-check tool, the description fully covers what it returns, when to call it, and when not to call it. No output schema exists, but the listed stats give enough expectation for an agent to interpret results.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, there is nothing for the description to add about individual parameters. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description provides no conflicting or redundant parameter information.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Check') and a clear resource ('memory backend'), then lists exact stats the call returns (current/superseded/expired counts, oldest/newest record, queue/dead-letter depth). It explicitly differentiates from memex_recall by stating what this tool is not for.

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?

Provides unambiguous when-to-use guidance: call after any other memex_* tool returns isError, before retrying. It also gives a direct exclusion and names the alternative (memex_recall) for searching memory.

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