memory_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses what data is returned (health fields) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, non-destructive, or whether it requires prior attachment to a process. More explicit behavioral context is needed.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the key health indicators. No wasted words.

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 zero parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns. It could mention that the health status is only meaningful after memory_attach, but it is not strictly necessary since the returned fields imply that context.

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?

No parameters are defined, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, but it also does not leverage the space for extra context about the parameters (which are none).

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 it provides 'raw-memory layer health' and lists specific fields (enabled flag, attach state, target process/pid). This distinguishes it from sibling memory tools like memory_attach (which performs attachment) and memory_read (which reads values).

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It is implied as a status check before memory operations, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned among siblings like connection_status or fsuipc_status.

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