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, establishing the safe read-only nature. The description adds value by disclosing exactly which status areas are covered (source, index, Graphify, runtime), providing useful context beyond the structured annotations. Given the presence of an output schema, return format is already documented, so the description's additional scope detail is adequate.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded and easily parsed.

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 has no parameters, a rich output schema, and clear annotations covering safety and idempotency. The description succinctly captures the essential scope of the status report. There is no missing critical information for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so no parameter explanations are needed. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for no parameters. The schema's 100% coverage (trivially) means there is no gap to compensate for.

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 the specific verb 'Report' and identifies the resource as status, breaking down four distinct components: source, index, Graphify, and runtime. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_recall and memory_sync, which imply different operations (retrieval and synchronization respectively).

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of memory_recall or memory_sync. The description only states what the tool does, without mentioning appropriate conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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