memory_consolidate_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false. Description aligns with these by saying it 'reports' and checks progress 'without interfering with active work,' adding useful behavioral context beyond the 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?

Description is two short sentences with the main action front-loaded. It includes only essential detail and no filler, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simple zero-parameter read-only nature of the tool, the description sufficiently covers what state is reported and why it is used. No output schema is present, so the listed output aspects (last-run, locks, recent activity) are enough context.

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?

Tool has no parameters, and the empty parameter schema fully documents this. There is nothing additional for the description to explain, so parameter semantics are complete.

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 uses a clear verb ('report') and specifies the object (consolidation daemon state) plus concrete details like per-project last-run, active locks, and recent activity. It also states the intended purpose of verifying idle-project worker progress, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

Description explicitly says 'Use to verify the idle-project worker is making progress,' giving a clear use case. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is sufficiently clear for this read-only status check.

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