Get Supermemory Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate those. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide; it does not clarify what 'status' means, whether the credential must already exist, or what errors may occur. The description is a bare restatement of the tool's function.

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 clear sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without redundancy, making it ideal for quick parsing.

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?

This is a very simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description and schema together are minimally sufficient for a basic status check, but the description does not explain what the returned status looks like or any edge cases (e.g., credential not found). It is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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 input schema covers the single parameter with a description: 'The Supermemory credential id.' Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no further semantic detail about how the credential ID is used or formatted, so a middle score 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the status of a Supermemory memory provider credential.' It clearly identifies the tool's action and object. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling status tools like lyzr_memprovider_validate_supermemory or lyzr_memprovider_mem0_status, though the 'Supermemory' qualifier helps narrow the scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or recommend this over sibling tools like lyzr_memprovider_validate_supermemory. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and description, which is not sufficient for effective decision-making.

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