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. It lists return fields but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it mention side effects, authentication, or rate limits. The behavior is largely implied.

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 two sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the key information. Every word is purposeful and no unnecessary content is present.

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?

While the description lists the returned fields, it does not explain their meaning or possible values (except for 'profile' and 'recall_mode'). Given the tool's complexity, additional context would improve completeness, but the core purpose is covered.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to clarify parameter semantics. The baseline score for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets 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 it 'Returns backend readiness' and enumerates the specific fields, making the purpose evident. No sibling tool has a similar function, so it distinguishes well.

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 specifies 'Use after wake to see whether recall is bounded or full GPU/BVH,' providing clear context and a specific use case. It does not mention when not to use it, but the unique nature of the tool makes this less critical.

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