Agent Memory Bridge

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses the specific return values (total count, kind breakdown, top domains, timestamps) and hints at implementation ('without opening SQLite directly'). It implies read-only behavior via 'Return,' but lacks explicit safety declarations (permissions, read-only confirmation) that annotations would normally cover.

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?

Efficient two-sentence structure front-loaded with the core action. First sentence establishes purpose, second provides usage context and output details. No redundancy with schema definitions or unnecessary verbiage.

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?

Appropriate for a single-parameter read operation where output schema exists (description lists key return fields without needing full structure). Mentions 'bridge' providing system context. Could improve by contrasting with siblings (e.g., 'browse' for detailed listing vs. this summary view).

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 100% with the namespace parameter fully documented including format examples ('project:<workspace>', 'domain:<name>'). The description mentions 'for one namespace' but adds no semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 'Return[s] a quick health summary' with specific metrics (count, breakdown, domains, timestamps). It distinguishes general intent from data modification tools (using 'Return'), but does not explicitly differentiate from read-oriented siblings like 'browse' or 'export' by name.

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?

Provides explicit 'when to use' context ('when you want to inspect what is in the bridge without opening SQLite directly'), establishing the convenience use case. However, it lacks exclusions or named alternatives for when to use sibling tools instead (e.g., 'use browse for detailed item listings').

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