mcp-memento

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves statistics, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it's safe, requires permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence ('Get statistics about the memento database') with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity. It's front-loaded but lacks depth.

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 complexity (a statistics tool likely involving aggregated data), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what statistics are returned, their format, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool with rich potential output and zero structured coverage, this is inadequate.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing schema information. It appropriately avoids discussing non-existent parameters.

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 the tool's purpose ('Get statistics about the memento database') which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('memento database') but lacks detail about what kind of statistics or scope. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_memento' or 'get_recent_memento_activity' beyond the general 'statistics' term.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over other get_* tools (e.g., for aggregated data vs. individual records) or any prerequisites. The description offers only a basic purpose without usage context.

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