status

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

No annotations provided, so the description fully discloses behavior: it is a read-only operation that returns health signals but not integrity proof. It specifies exactly what data is returned and acknowledges limits, leaving no surprises.

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?

Description is around 100 words, front-loaded with purpose, then lists specifics, and ends with a contrast to the CLI. Every sentence serves a purpose; no fluff.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fully complete: it covers all returned data, usage context, and limitations. Nothing is missing for an agent to decide and invoke.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage. The description adds value by detailing the output metrics, effectively documenting the return value for an agent, which is beyond the baseline of 4 for zero-param tools.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource ('Get memory health metrics'), and then enumerates the specific metrics returned. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools (delete_episode, prepare_wrap, recall, record, save_continuity) which cover other operations.

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?

Explicitly states when to call the tool ('at session start to understand memory state, or when diagnosing issues') and provides a clear when-not by referencing the CLI tool 'anneal-memory verify' for integrity proof. No ambiguity.

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