memory_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the main output categories and 'Get' implies a non-mutating operation. However, it does not describe the return structure, whether the token estimate is approximate, or what happens if the agent_id is invalid or missing.

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 a single sentence with a front-loaded verb and a colon-separated list of three concrete outputs. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool, and the description names the expected output domains, which is helpful. But with no output schema and no parameter explanation, an agent relying solely on the description lacks details about the return shape and the semantics of agent_id.

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 0%, and the description never mentions agent_id or what it identifies. The single required parameter's meaning is left entirely to the schema, which only says it is a string.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get memory status') and enumerates the status components: persona weights, lane sizes, token estimate. This distinguishes it from sibling content tools like memory_get_context or memory_get_recent, though it could be more explicit about how it differs from those alternatives.

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 siblings such as memory_get_context, memory_get_lane, or memory_get_recent. There are no exclusions, triggers, or alternative conditions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case entirely.

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