mh_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what metrics are reported but does not explicitly say the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, what permissions are needed, or how the data is returned. The read-only nature is only inferred from 'status'.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and immediately lists the six key metrics. There is no redundant filler, and every element contributes to understanding what the tool provides.

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 covers what metrics are included, but with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves out details about the return format, data types, and whether the operation is strictly read-only. For a simple status tool it is adequate, but it is not fully complete for an agent needing to interpret the response reliably.

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 the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context by listing the categories of data the no-argument call will return, which helps the agent understand the call's output even though there is no parameter schema to enrich.

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 identifies a specific resource ('openmem 健康状态') and enumerates six concrete metrics it reports (总条数/钉住数/归档数/待审冲突/工具数/咨询次数). It goes beyond the bare tool name, though it lacks an explicit verb. It is reasonably distinguishable from sibling tools like mh_write or mh_search because it clearly denotes a status/overview operation.

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 phrase '健康状态' implies this tool is used for health/status checks, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools. There is an implied usage context, but no direct routing or alternatives are mentioned.

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