user_stats

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the obvious read-only nature of 'statistics.' Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden, but it fails to mention permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The term 'statistics' implies no mutation, so this is minimally acceptable.

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 phrase with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured, though it could benefit from a bit more detail to improve completeness without losing conciseness.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the structure of the returned statistics (e.g., format or fields) nor provide guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. A more complete description is needed.

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 has 100% coverage with a description for userId. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 indicates it provides memory statistics for a user, broken down by total, role, and tier. However, it does not explicitly state the verb (e.g., 'get' or 'list'), and it lacks differentiation from the sibling 'stats' tool which might provide global statistics. Still, the purpose is reasonably clear.

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 like 'stats' (global stats) or other user-specific tools. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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