mcp_engram_get_backend_readiness

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Returns' and implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm no side effects or permissions requirements. It does add useful context about the 'after wake' timing and interpretation of the fields, but the lack of explicit safety disclosure keeps it at a 3.

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 long sentence, but it front-loads the core purpose ('Returns backend readiness') and then efficiently lists all returned fields. It is dense but not wasteful; every element contributes meaning. Slightly long due to the exhaustive field list, but appropriate for a status tool with no output schema.

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 compensates by enumerating all returned fields and includes usage timing ('Use after wake'). It explains what to check ('whether recall is full GPU/BVH and whether RoMem α speed-gate is active'). It could further explain field meanings, but for a zero-param status tool, it is largely complete.

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 has zero parameters, so by the rubric baseline is 4. The description naturally needs no parameter details and adds no irrelevant param information.

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 'Returns backend readiness' and enumerates specific fields (fully_initialized, bvh_ready, recall_mode, etc.), making the purpose concrete and distinguishable from sibling tools like mcp_engram_stats or mcp_engram_spatial_status by its unique focus on backend readiness and alpha policy surface.

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 use case: 'Use after wake to see whether recall is full GPU/BVH and whether RoMem α speed-gate is active.' This tells the agent when to invoke it, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would be needed for a full 5.

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