Get Mem0 Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, and the description's 'Get' is consistent with read-only behavior. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as whether status includes connectivity checks or what credential states exist.

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 front-loads the action and target. There is no waste or unnecessary elaboration, which is ideal for this simple tool.

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 extremely simple with one parameter, and the schema and annotations cover most essential context. However, there is no output schema and the description doesn't clarify what 'status' returns or what status values are possible, leaving a minor but notable gap.

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 100% with the parameter 'credential_id' described as 'The Mem0 credential id'. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'status of a Mem0 memory provider credential', making the tool's basic purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from validation tools by focusing on status, though it does not explicitly differentiate from get_provider or validate_mem0.

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 guidance is provided. The description doesn't indicate when to use this tool instead of lyzr_memprovider_validate_mem0 or lyzr_memprovider_get_provider, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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