memory_stats

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does (counts) but omits whether it is read-only, what side effects (none expected), performance considerations (e.g., may be expensive on large graphs), or required permissions. The presence of an output schema partially mitigates the need to describe return values, but other transparency aspects are unaddressed.

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 concise sentence that clearly communicates the purpose. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. No unnecessary words are present. A slightly more structured approach (e.g., 'Retrieves...') could improve clarity, but the current form is 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the core purpose. However, it could benefit from explaining what 'memory levels' and 'graphs' refer to in the context of the system, especially since sibling tools have related but different scopes. The description is minimally complete but enough for a zero-param stats tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist. The description does not need to add parameter information since there are none.

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 provides 'Node and edge counts across memory levels and graphs.' It specifies the verb ('counts') and resource (node and edge counts), and the scope ('across memory levels and graphs') distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_read (reads specific entries) and tasks_stats (task-specific stats).

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_read, memory_consolidate, or cache_stats. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts where this tool is appropriate, or when it should be avoided.

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