goodmemory_inspect_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is 'read-only', which is a key behavioral trait, and specifies it covers 'durable and runtime' state. However, it doesn't disclose potential costs, side effects (e.g., performance overhead of inspecting runtime state), or the exact shape of the snapshot, so it is not fully transparent.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the key term 'Diagnostic', and every word adds value. It immediately communicates the tool's distinct role and when to use it, with no wasted text.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, no output schema, no annotations, and a clear-purpose description, it is reasonably complete. The description conveys the tool's essence and use case, but might benefit from mentioning what kind of 'snapshot' content is included (e.g., structure, size, or format) to fully compensate for the lack of an output schema. Overall, it is sufficiently contextual for an agent to handle it.

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?

Schema description coverage is 67%, covering cwd and sessionId, but includeRuntime lacks a description. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, so it neither compensates for the missing includeRuntime semantics nor adds anything beyond the schema. A score of 3 reflects that the schema already documents most parameters, but the description could have clarified the undocumented boolean.

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 provides a 'read-only snapshot of durable and runtime GoodMemory state' for the current workspace, which is a specific and informative purpose. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by labeling it a 'Diagnostic' tool beyond primary tools like goodmemory_get_context.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when you need a read-only snapshot...' and contrasts it with 'primary goodmemory_get_context / goodmemory_remember tools', thus giving clear when-to-use context and naming alternatives. Although it doesn't explicitly list when-not-to-use, the 'beyond the primary' phrasing effectively excludes normal recall use cases.

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