memory_scope_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe-read profile, and the description adds real value beyond it by explaining that unresolved rows are excluded from automatic recall until an operator classifies them. That is meaningful domain behavior about what the reported state means, not a restatement of the annotation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is shown and followed by why it matters. The second sentence is slightly run-on but every clause earns its place; there is no padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description correctly focuses on the meaning of the audit surface. For a parameterless read-only status tool it is essentially complete, lacking only explicit sibling disambiguation.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the schema or description to clarify; baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies. No semantic gaps exist.

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 names the specific resource contents ('current path-free namespace and legacy migration accounting'), which is more precise than a generic 'status' label. It is distinguishable from the many sibling *_status tools by its namespace/migration focus, though it never names those siblings 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?

The phrase 'a visible audit surface after upgrading' implies the triggering context (post-upgrade verification), which is useful implied guidance. However, no alternatives are named and no when-not conditions are stated for a tool sitting among ~100 siblings, so usage remains inferred rather than directed.

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