Inspect memory state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that by framing the operation as a report. It adds meaningful context by specifying the exact metrics reported (slots in use, episodes, facts due for review, etc.), which goes beyond the annotation and clarifies the tool's non-mutating scope.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core reporting content, and the second provides the practical usage intent. Every word adds value.

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, read-only inspection tool, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what is reported, in what granularity, and why it would be used. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently characterizes the return content.

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 zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs.

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 states a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('each of the seven layers'), enumerating the exact memory categories covered. It clearly distinguishes this inspection tool from the sibling tools (store, recall, consolidate) by framing it as a state check rather than a mutation or retrieval operation.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use it to check what the agent actually remembers.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but for a zero-parameter health-check tool, the intended context is clear and unambiguous.

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