life_memory_install_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Return ... information' implies a safe, side-effect-free read operation, and the content categories (installation, consent, safety) are disclosed. However, it does not explicitly confirm it is read-only or that it performs no mutation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word earns its place and the core purpose leads the sentence.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only signal about the return payload. It names the content categories (installation, consent, safety) but gives no sense of structure or provenance, so it is minimally adequate for a zero-argument reference tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. There are no arguments whose meaning the description needs to clarify.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and enumerates the resource content (canonical installation, save-consent, and safety information for Life Memory MCP). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_memory_profiles or save_memory, though it doesn't name an alternative explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. An agent can infer this is a reference/info tool from the name and description, but nothing states when it should be called versus other discovery tools such as list_memory_profiles or load_memory_persona.

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