amem_status

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

Since no annotations were provided, the description must carry the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only behavior ('Binding, policy, and counts'). However, it does not disclose non-functional behaviors like rate limits, latency, or the expected structure of the 'full monitored inventory,' keeping it at a satisfactory but not stellar score.

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 definition is extremely concise. It uses only two sentences, and every phrase serves a high-value purpose: defining content and defining scope/behavior.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description provides all the necessary context regarding what the tool retrieves (bindings, policies, inventory) and how its behavior changes based on the input parameters. It is highly complete for its functional purpose.

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% schema description coverage, the description is vital. It explains the semantic significance of the 'workspace' parameter—that it controls the scope (single repo vs. machine-wide)—which is crucial context for tool invocation.

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 explicitly defines the resource and the data it returns ('Binding, policy, and counts,' 'full monitored inventory'). It clearly distinguishes the tool's function from a generic data retrieval operation.

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 a clear conditional usage guideline: omitting the 'workspace' parameter switches the scope from a specific repository to a machine-wide overview, effectively guiding the agent on how to use it for different levels of detail.

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