Memory System Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds context about the returned data structure and the tool's role as a fast check. No behavioral traits are hidden, and no contradictions exist.

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 concise with three sentences. The first sets purpose, the second details return fields, and the third provides usage guidance—all front-loaded. No unnecessary 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 zero parameters, rich annotations, and an existing output schema, the description fully covers the tool's capability and relationship to siblings. It tells what it returns and when to use it, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description naturally adds no parameter information. The schema coverage is 100% (trivially), and baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does not need to explain 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Report the health of the verifiable-memory system.' It lists the returned fields and distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying that `verify` performs a full audit and `tree_head` gives the signed log commitment.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use for a fast health/identity check.' It also explicitly states when not to use and alternatives: 'For a full per-memory credential audit use `verify`; for the signed log commitment use `tree_head`.'

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