memcp_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('statistics') but does not explicitly confirm non-destructive nature, authentication needs, or side effects. Lacks details on rate limits or error conditions.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and output. No redundant information. Efficiently structured for quick reading.

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?

Output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. However, given zero annotations and many sibling tools, the description could provide more context on the scope of statistics (global vs per project/session) and how to interpret importance distribution. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It states parameters filter by 'project' and 'session', which adds basic context. However, it does not specify format or behavior (e.g., case sensitivity, wildcards). Provides minimal enhancement over the schema.

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 it provides 'memory statistics' and lists specific metrics: insight count, categories, importance distribution. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memcp_graph_stats (likely graph-specific) and memcp_recall (retrieval).

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 mentions optional filters (project, session) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memcp_graph_stats or memcp_ping. No exclusions or context-specific usage tips.

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