memo_operational_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns only open items unless include_closed is set, enforces a per-section limit, and explains why unbounded snapshots accumulate context cost.

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 two sentences: a crisp summary of what is read, then a concise explanation of snapshot behavior, defaults, and cost rationale. No filler or redundancy; the key action is front-loaded.

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?

With a rich output schema and parameter descriptions, the description adequately captures the tool's scope without needing return-value details. Its prose list omits 'signals' (present in the schema's limit description), but this is minor and readily filled by the 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?

Parameter schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented (limit default 20, project scoping, include_closed false). The description references 'include_closed' and 'limit' but adds no new syntactic meaning; it reinforces the reason for the limit but does not expand on parameter semantics.

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 'Read current focus, handoffs, attention items, conflicts, and outcomes,' clearly specifying the action and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like memo_focus_set or memo_handoff_create, which modify those items rather than read them.

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 establishes a clear read-only snapshot use case and explains default behavior (open items only, limited entries) and the cost rationale. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the read-only nature and aggregate scope make the intended context obvious.

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