Memory Status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the safety profile. 'Report' and 'health' clearly frame this as a read-only inspection tool, and it adds context about what is inspected. It does not explicitly state 'no side effects' or address permissions, but nothing suggests mutation and the framing is sufficiently transparent for a status 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?

Two tight sentences: the first states the core purpose and the second provides actionable use-cases. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording or restatement of the title.

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?

For a read-only status reporting tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, the exact situations to call it, and enough context about defaults. The output schema covers return details, so nothing essential is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description never names user_id or agent_name or explains how they filter/select the status returned. It only hints at identity through 'which identity the defaults resolve to,' which is insufficient to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report the memory backend's configuration and health.' It then enumerates concrete sub-purposes (model configured, storage location, identity defaults), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling data-access tools like memory_get or memory_search.

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 second sentence explicitly tells an agent when to use it: checking configuration, model readiness, storage location, and default identity resolution. It does not explicitly name excluded alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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