memory_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what the tool returns but does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, or performance implications. Given it is a dashboard, a 3 is appropriate.

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 'Retention dashboard,' and no redundant words. Every sentence contributes to clarity.

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 no output schema, the description covers key return elements (avg retention, distribution, trend, recommendation). It also provides context with the sibling alternative. Missing details like exact return format or pagination, but still adequate.

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, and the schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds value by explaining the tool's output, which is beyond the schema's empty structure.

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 'Retention dashboard' and lists specific return values (avg retention, distribution, trend, recommendation). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'system_status' by noting it's a lightweight alternative focused on memory quality.

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 description provides clear context: it is a lightweight alternative to 'system_status' for memory-specific quality metrics. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it, the differentiation implies its appropriate use case.

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