memory_get_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. It clearly indicates a non-mutating status operation by using 'Get' and 'Shows', which implies no side effects. While not explicitly stating 'read-only', the behavior is inherently 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?

The description is two short sentences with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description adequately communicates the tool's function and expected output content. It could mention the return format or whether it supports any flags, but given the low complexity, the description is sufficiently 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 the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist, and the description does not need to compensate for 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get status and capabilities' with a specific verb and resource. It further details what it shows (available engines and analyses), distinguishing it from sibling analysis tools that perform actual memory forensics.

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 implies usage as a precursor to selecting analysis tools, since it shows which engines and analyses are available. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for a status/capability check.

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