status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the output (path, counts, token size, backend) which is the core behavior. It does not explicitly state side effects (though 'report' implies read-only), authentication needs, or error conditions. For a simple status tool this is adequate but not rich, warranting a 3.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence lists the exact output fields, and the second gives the intended usage. It is front-loaded with the key information and contains no fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers all essential information: what it reports and when to use it. It does not specify failure behavior (e.g., if no vault is connected), but that is a minor gap for a status check. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is effectively perfect. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but with zero parameters the baseline is 4. It correctly avoids inventing parameters and simply explains the tool's output rather than inputs.

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 names the specific verb 'Report' and the resource 'connected WikiMoth memory vault', then lists exact metrics (path, note/chunk counts, token size, backend). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_duplicates, recall, or list_conflicts, which address different concerns. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does.

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 states a clear use case: 'Use to confirm memory is wired up.' It explains when to call it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but given its diagnostic nature and lack of overlapping siblings, the guidance is sufficient. It earns a 4 for clear context without exclusions.

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