Memory graph statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful context beyond those by stating 'Read-only, idempotent, no parameters' and 'Auth: tool policy gate', giving the agent operational expectations not present in the structured fields.

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 three short sentences with no filler: capability first, then use case, then exclusion and alternative. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important distinguishing information is front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present, no parameters, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description provides all remaining operational context: when to use, when not to use, and authentication expectations. Nothing material is missing.

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 schema fully covers the input surface and the description correctly confirms 'no parameters.' With no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 is appropriate here.

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 ('Return'), a precise resource ('node counts by level plus edge and entity-index sizes'), and explicitly names the sibling it is not (memory_read). An agent can unambiguously distinguish this from memory_read, memory_write, and cache_stats without opening schemas.

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?

It says exactly when to use the tool ('capacity/health checks') and explicitly says when not to use it ('Do not use to read node content'), naming the alternative (memory_read). The no-parameters note also removes any ambiguity about invocation.

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