memory_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description itself must carry the behavioral burden. 'Get' and 'status' imply a non-mutating read, which is useful, but the description does not explicitly state that no state is modified, nor does it clarify whether reading token estimates has any cost or prerequisites.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and directly enumerates the three return categories. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description is almost complete: it names the required input and the expected output categories. The phrase 'client info' is vague and there is no mention of how token estimates are computed or what 'client info' includes, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 description coverage is 100% and the sole parameter 'project_id' is described as 'Project ID.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('token estimates, last compaction, and client info for a project'), which clearly indicates the tool is a status read. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling memory_* tools such as memory_list or memory_log, so it stays at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus memory_list, memory_log, or memory_retrieve. The description only says what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case from the name.

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