memory_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently mentions the automatic initialization on first use, which is a side effect, and lists the output fields. However, it omits the behavior of the 'init' parameter (force reinitialization) and its potential consequences, only the schema warns 'use with caution'. This gap leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a concise list of displayed items. There is no redundant or extraneous information; every sentence 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: purpose, side effect (auto-initialization), and displayed content. It does not mention the 'init' parameter, but the schema describes it, and the description is otherwise complete. Minor gaps exist around when reinitialization is needed, but overall adequately complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning the only parameter 'init' is fully described with '強制重新初始化（謹慎使用）'. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb '查看' (view) and resource '記憶系統狀態' (memory system status), and enumerates the displayed items (connection status, Core Memory usage, Archival record count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_recall, memory_update, memory_archive, and memory_search, which focus on different operations.

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 provides clear context: it is for viewing memory system status and mentions automatic initialization on first use. It implies when to use the tool, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (siblings). No exclusions are given, but the context is sufficient for basic usage.

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