memory_status

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds valuable context: memory is entirely file-backed at a specific path, there is no external backend, and it discloses the exact return fields (status, backend, reason). This goes beyond annotation and helps the agent understand expected behavior.

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 four short sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, backend context, read-only behavior, and return format. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no filler or 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 simple read-only status tool, the description fully covers what it does, how it behaves, and what it returns. It also explains the file-backed architecture, making the tool's behavior predictable even without an output schema.

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, so the schema is trivially complete. The description reinforces this by stating 'takes no arguments', which is sufficient. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 starts with 'Report the memory backend status', a specific verb+resource pair that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like memory_get or memory_lookup which retrieve data. It unambiguously conveys that this is a status query, not a data access operation.

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 context is clear: it is a read-only status check with no arguments, and the file-backed nature is explained. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to alternative siblings, leaving the user to infer distinctions from the sibling list.

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