logicmem_memory_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Get' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description does not explicitly state this or mention any other behavioral aspects like permissions, performance, or return format beyond the listed stats.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and provides concrete details. It is concise without sacrificing clarity.

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?

For a simple parameterless read-only stats tool, the description adequately covers the core purpose and output data. However, terms like 'categories' and 'storage' could be ambiguous (e.g., storage as data size vs. memory usage), so a bit more precision would improve completeness.

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, so the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). The description adds value by specifying what the returned stats will include (total entries, categories, storage), which the empty schema cannot convey. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('memory system stats'), and lists specific data points (total entries, categories, storage). This makes it distinct from sibling tools like memory_log or memory_health.

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 purpose implies usage when an overall memory system overview is needed, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_log or memory_health. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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