memory_connection_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond these: it is a lightweight check that does not read entry values and verifies path readiness and size. This is consistent with the annotations and adds value without contradiction.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose ('Local SQLite path readiness and size') and include a critical usage note ('Safe first call every session'). There is no wasted wording, making it highly efficient.

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 status-check tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and usage guidance. It does not describe the return format, but for a readiness/size check an agent can reasonably infer a JSON status object. The absence of output schema reduces the need for detailed return documentation.

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%, so the parameter privacy_mode is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, so it relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 function: checking 'Local SQLite path readiness and size' while explicitly noting it does so 'without reading entry values'. This distinguishes it from data-access siblings like memory_get and memory_list. It could be more explicit about being a status/health check, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Safe first call every session' provides clear usage context, recommending it as an initial lightweight check before other operations. It also implicitly differentiates from siblings by noting it avoids reading entry values, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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