memory_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists output fields and does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or requires specific permissions. This is a significant gap for a status-checking 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the main action ('Return project health...') and lists the status components concisely. Every part adds value with no wasted words.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable list of status categories but lacks detail on data types, structure, or possible values. For a zero-parameter status tool, it is minimally adequate but could be more complete.

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%. The description correctly implies no inputs are required. No additional parameter semantics are needed, and the baseline score applies.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns status information including project health, bootstrap state, etc. It is specific about the resource (memory status) and the action (return). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like inspect_memory or retrieve_agent_context, which could also provide state information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, known limitations, or when not to use it. Without context, an agent may choose this tool inappropriately.

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