status

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only, takes no arguments,' which aligns with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It also describes the output format (version line followed by counts per line), providing transparency about the tool's behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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 somewhat verbose but not excessive. It lists several specific counts, which adds useful detail but could be condensed. The structure is logical: purpose, distinction from siblings, then behavior. It earns a 4 for being informative without being overly wordy.

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 description explains the output format and enumerates the types of counts included, which is helpful for understanding what to expect. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but for a simple status tool with no parameters, this is sufficient. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to use the tool 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?

There are no parameters in the schema, so the description cannot add meaning beyond the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema coverage is effectively 100% (no parameters to describe).

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: it reports live item counts per kind in the memory store. The verb 'reports' is specific, and the resource ('memory holds') is identified. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get and history by explicitly mentioning they are for specific item retrieval.

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 indicates when not to use the tool ('Use get or history instead for one specific item'), which implicitly guides when to use status for an overview. However, it does not explicitly state conditions like 'when you need a summary' or 'when you need counts,' so it falls slightly short of fully explicit guidance.

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