Show what is remembered

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

With no annotations, the description must itself indicate behavior. It conveys an aggregate, read-style report of current memory state, but it does not explicitly state side-effect safety, freshness semantics, or whether it is an inexpensive index read versus a scan. This is adequate but not richly transparent.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the operation and the breakdown dimensions without filler. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 one-parameter read-only status tool, the description explains the core return value (node counts grouped by kind and source) even without an output schema. It is slightly incomplete because 'kind' and 'source' are not enumerated, but the overall contract is clear.

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 schema already describes projectRoot as an absolute path to the repository root with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat it. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, keeping this at the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and a specific resource ('how many nodes NexusMem currently remembers for a repository'), and the 'broken down by kind and source' detail makes it clearly a counts/status operation rather than a list or mutation. This differentiates it from sibling tools that list, search, sync, or resolve.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose get_status over list_recent_memory, search_memory, or list_stale_suggestions, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the word 'Report.'

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