memory_guard_status

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

The description indicates a read-only operation (Show) but does not disclose any potential side effects, permissions needed, or additional behavioral details. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, but it is minimally adequate for a simple status tool.

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 sentence that is concise and to the point, containing no unnecessary words or redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, has output schema), the description sufficiently explains what the tool does. The presence of an output schema relieves the need to describe return values.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying that the output includes thresholds and RSS rows, which clarifies what the tool displays beyond the empty input schema.

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 shows memory-guard thresholds and thread-keeper RSS rows, using a specific verb 'Show' and specifying the resources. This distinguishes it from siblings like memory_guard_check or memory_guard_reclaim, which likely perform different actions.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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