stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It partially discharges this by disclosing what the call returns (total and per-tier counts), which implies a read-only inspection, but it never states that it is side-effect free, what permission level it needs, or how the results are shaped.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler, and the resource (记忆库的规模) is front-loaded ahead of the enumerated outputs. It is arguably a touch too compressed, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 zero-param read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the agent still lacks a statement of safety/read-only nature and any sense of the response shape beyond 'total and per-tier counts.' Adequate to invoke correctly, but thin on behavioral guarantees.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there are no arguments whose meaning the description would need to explain beyond what the empty schema already shows.

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 names a concrete resource (记忆库 / memory store) and states exactly what it reports: total count plus per-tier counts (总数、各层级条数). That is specific enough for an agent to distinguish it from the write/read siblings remember, recall, brief and tick, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'看一眼' implies a lightweight diagnostic glance, which is the natural usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to an alternative sibling. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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