Stateless Agent Memory Engine (SAME)

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond this by specifying what information is returned (note count, chunk count, etc.) and providing troubleshooting guidance, though it doesn't mention rate limits or performance characteristics. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by details and troubleshooting. It could be slightly more concise by merging some sentences, but every sentence adds value (e.g., return details and alternative actions).

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 low complexity (0 parameters, read-only), no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, usage, returns, and troubleshooting, though it could briefly mention the response format or any limitations for full completeness.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately notes there are no inputs by not discussing parameters, which is sufficient given the schema fully covers this.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Check', 'verify', 'report') and resources ('health and size of the note index'), distinguishing it from siblings like reindex (which modifies) or mem_health (which checks memory). It explicitly identifies what it does rather than restating the name.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('to verify the index is up to date or to report stats to the user') and when to use alternatives ('If the user reports problems, suggest they run `same doctor` for diagnostics. For bugs, direct them to...'), clearly differentiating from other tools like reindex or mem_health.

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