mnemostack_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only, has no side effects, and requires no authentication. It also describes the return format. This goes beyond minimal requirements, though it omits potential error conditions or rate limits.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes all essential details without any filler. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, presence of an output schema), the description fully covers the agent's needs: purpose, behavior, return fields, and usage guidance. No gaps remain.

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 input schema is fully described (100% coverage). The description correctly indicates no inputs are needed. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no extra parameter semantics, which is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'check' and clearly identifies the resource 'health of all mnemostack components'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by directing users to use this tool before recall queries, implying other tools (answer, feedback, search) are for different tasks.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('before issuing recall queries') and clarifies characteristics ('Read-only, no side effects, no authentication required'). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context makes those clear.

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