memory_status

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description explains the meaning of active_count versus total_count and how they relate to retrieval semantics (validation at as_of, including forgotten and expired records). This gives the agent genuinely useful behavioral context about how the data in the report should be interpreted.

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 first sentence is an excellent front-loaded summary maps directly to the tool name. The added detail about scopes is useful, though the phrase 'kept as separate fields' is slightly redundant and the paragraph could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 carries the burden of explaining what the agent can expect: location, counts, schema, capabilities, and a detailed account of the scopes sub-structure. For a zero-parameter status tool, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the result correctly.

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 100%, so there is nothing meaningful to add about parameter behavior. The baseline of 4 applies; the description appropriately spends no space on parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Report') and a clear resource ('database location, counts, scope inventory, schema and capabilities'). This immediately distinguishes memory_status from memory_search, memory_store, and other siblings because it is about inspecting the memory system itself rather than operating on memories.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use: 'Check it when the task scope is unclear or changes.' It also warns against over-reading scopes ('knowing that a scope exists is not a reason to read every project'), which prevents misuse. It does not name alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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