memory_status

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only action with 'Check' but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, what permissions are required, or any other behavioral details. It adds minimal context beyond the tool name, lacking disclosures about return format or operational boundaries.

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 verb and specific objects. It contains no unnecessary words and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple with no parameters or annotations, but the description only states what it checks without explaining what 'status' means or what the output looks like. It is minimally adequate for an agent to understand the tool's primary function, but it lacks detail about the return value or any behavioral caveats.

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 there is no parameter burden. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description correctly avoids mentioning parameters since none exist. The schema already trivially covers all parameters (none), and the description does not need to compensate.

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 ('Check') and identifies the exact resources ('SecondBrain index' and 'automatic harvester status'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_search or memory_capture. This is a clear, specific statement of functionality.

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, nor any mention of prerequisites or conditions. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and siblings. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given.

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