memory_status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is already covered; the description adds genuinely useful context beyond that — next-step workflow and deployment scope (MCP server and CLI expose it, the opencode native plugin does not). It stops short of describing output shape or any rate/limit behavior, but for a zero-param status read that is a minor gap.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool shows, then triggers, then alternatives. Dense but every sentence carries routing or behavioral value; the trailing parenthetical about which surfaces expose the tool is the only slightly expendable part, though it does prevent an agent from hallucinating availability.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does by enumerating the three pipeline categories and the required follow-up (ask which drafts to sync). Complete enough to call correctly, though it could note whether the result is grouped or how to interpret an empty pipeline.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No misleading or missing parameter guidance.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Show the project memory sync pipeline') and enumerates exactly what it surfaces: outbox drafts, repo memories awaiting review or published, and uncommitted repo files. This is clearly distinguishable from the siblings that manage memories rather than report pipeline state.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions (session start, when the server reports drafts awaiting review, when the user says 'sync memory'/'同步记忆') and names the alternatives for adjacent needs: memory_list for the memories themselves and memory_pr_status for PR review state. It even specifies the follow-up action (ask the user which drafts to sync).

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