memory_status

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description's added value is the workflow obligation it creates (the agent must ask the user which drafts to sync afterward) and the availability caveat that the opencode native plugin does not expose this tool while the MCP server and CLI do. It does not describe pagination or output shape, but the annotation carries the safety burden.

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 returns, then the when-to-call triggers, with the CLI/plugin caveat confined to a trailing parenthetical. Dense but every clause carries information; the only cost is a long opening sentence.

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 output schema, the description must convey the return content, and it does so precisely by naming the three state categories the pipeline reports. For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs, and it correctly offers no parameter prose.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Show the project memory sync pipeline') and enumerates exactly what is shown: outbox drafts, repo memories awaiting review or published, and uncommitted repo files. That scope is clearly distinct from siblings like memory_list or memory_pr_status, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

It gives explicit invocation triggers — at session start, when the server reports drafts waiting for review, or when the user says 'sync memory' / '同步记忆' — and even states the required follow-up ('ask the user which drafts to sync'). This is as prescriptive as usage guidance gets.

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