memory_health

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only describes the output (score and penalties) but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or that it has no side effects. It also doesn't mention any prerequisites or potential recomputation. Since it appears to be a monitoring tool, this lack of explicit safety semantics is a gap.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the key output (score with itemized penalties). Every phrase adds meaningful detail (linked ratio, crowded cues, conflicts, etc.) without waste.

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 low complexity (no params, no output schema), the description is largely sufficient: it specifies the return value type, range, and components. It could be improved by adding a note about when this is appropriate compared to sibling tools, but the essential info for invocation is present.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific info because there are none, but it doesn't need to.

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 produces a memory-health score (0-100) with itemized penalties, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_status or memory_audit. It names the exact resource ('overall memory-health score') and the components of the score.

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 implies usage: use it when you want a high-level health score with penalty details. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., memory_status or practice_report), and lacks any exclusions or alternative recommendations. It merely describes what the tool does.

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