Check project memory and contract health in one view to catch missing context or broken agreements before coding.
Show project memory + contract health at a glance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. "Show" weakly implies a read-only operation, but nothing confirms it, and there is no mention of cost, auth requirements, or whether the summary is cached/live — meaningful gaps for a memory-and-health dashboard 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?
A single eight-word sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is arguably under-specified rather than bloated, but it wastes nothing.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of information about what comes back. It never says what "at a glance" contains — memory counts, contract violations, pass/fail state — leaving the agent unable to predict the return value before calling.
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 and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level information is needed.
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?
Names a verb ("Show") and two resources ("project memory" and "contract health"), so the general domain is graspable. But "contract health" is unexplained jargon, and nothing distinguishes this from siblings like amp_health or infernoflow_git_drift, which sound like they surface overlapping health signals.
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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus amp_health, infernoflow_git_drift, or amp_resume. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.