memory_doctor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces this by saying 'without changing files' and adds useful context about 'project-local' scope. No contradiction found; it provides additional behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Check') and packs in scope and non-destructive intent efficiently.

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 zero parameters, a full annotation set (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent), and an output schema, the description is sufficient for basic understanding. It clearly states what it does and that it is safe, though it could clarify the meaning of 'On Board' for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 and schema coverage is trivially 100%, so the description carries no parameter burden. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and no further elaboration is needed.

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 checks 'project-local On Board setup' and specifies it does so 'without changing files', giving a specific verb, resource, and constraint. It distinguishes itself from write-oriented tools like memory_init, though the term 'On Board' is somewhat opaque and not differentiated from memory_status.

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?

Usage is implied (use it to check setup without modifying files), but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided relative to sibling tools. The description does not name any other tool or exclusion scenarios.

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