RecallNest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully identifies the operation as 'Read-only' and conceptually describes the returned data (counts by source/category). However, it lacks details about the return format structure, performance characteristics, or error conditions that would be expected when no annotations or output schema exist.

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 consists of two highly efficient sentences that are front-loaded with the core function. Every phrase serves a distinct purpose: the first defines the output content, while the second specifies behavior and use case. No redundancy or filler text is present.

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's low complexity (zero parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what conceptual information is returned. However, it could slightly improve by hinting at the data structure format (e.g., JSON object with fields) to fully compensate for the missing output schema.

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 input schema contains zero parameters, which establishes a baseline of 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameter details, maintaining consistency with the empty schema while implying through 'aggregate statistics' that no filtering parameters are required for this global overview.

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 specifies the verb (Show), resource (memory database), and exact scope (aggregate statistics, total entries, counts by source and category). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like search_memory or memory_drill_down by emphasizing 'aggregate' overview rather than specific retrieval or analysis.

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 description provides explicit usage context ('Use when you need an overview of memory store health or size') and notes the read-only nature. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for different use cases, such as when to prefer data_checkup or memory_drill_down instead.

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