agentbay_memory_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile, so the bar for the description is lower. The description adds useful context by defining what 'health' means here — entry counts, type/tier breakdown, and sync backlog — which the tool name alone does not convey. It aligns with the read-only annotation by describing observation rather than mutation, and discloses no side effects, which is appropriate for a read-only tool.

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?

A single 14-word sentence front-loads the topic and uses a colon to enumerate the three stat categories cleanly. Every element earns its place with zero redundancy or filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only inspection tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the three stat categories an agent will receive, which carries meaningful weight since no output schema exists. A slightly richer return-format hint (e.g., single object vs. sectioned) could add value, but nothing required to invoke the tool 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 has zero parameters and the empty schema fully covers the parameter space, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameters needing explanation, and the description correctly spends its budget describing the return content rather than inventing parameter detail.

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 specifies the resource (local brain/memory) and the exact content of the report: total entries, type/tier breakdown, and sync-waiting count. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like agentbay_memory_store/recall/forget/verify, which operate on individual entries. However, the verb is implicit — 'Local brain stats' is a noun phrase rather than an explicit 'Gets/Reports memory health' — so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative routing is provided. The intended use is implied by the tool's role as the only sibling that reports aggregate memory health rather than storing, recalling, forgetting, verifying, or compacting entries. The 'waiting to sync' hint suggests it is relevant for checking sync backlog, but this is left to inference.

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