memory_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the 'Show' wording is consistent with them. The description does not add meaningful behavioral detail beyond those annotations, such as whether it reads from disk or whether it can affect the append log, but it also does not contradict them.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the verb and immediately lists the four kinds of information returned. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary explanation.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, has only one optional parameter and no output schema, and its safety profile is fully covered by annotations. However, the missing parameter semantics and the lack of guidance relative to memory_checkpoint make the description incomplete enough to be only minimally viable.

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 single parameter, project_root, has 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description never mentions it. Because the schema provides only a type with no explanation, the description should compensate but instead leaves the agent guessing how project_root affects the output.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Show', and enumerates precise resource categories: 'store paths, counts, current project identity, and append-log integrity.' This clearly differentiates it from mutating or memory-writing siblings like memory_forget and memory_ingest_project.

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?

No usage context is provided, and there is no statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_checkpoint. The agent must infer entirely from the tool name that this is a read-only status/health inspection tool, so practical guidance is essentially absent.

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