memory_stats

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

No annotations provided, so description carries all burden. It indicates a read-only operation (showing stats) but does not mention potential side effects, latency, or limits. Since there are no parameters, the behavioral scope is narrow, but a statement about being non-destructive would improve transparency.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key information: purpose and types of statistics. No wasted words.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool shows (counts by category, project, most accessed, recent searches). It does not describe the return format, but for a simple stats tool, the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

No parameters exist, so description need not explain parameter meaning. Baseline score 4 is appropriate as the description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. The schema coverage is 100% because there are zero 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?

Description clearly states the tool shows memory system statistics, listing specific categories (counts by category, project, most accessed, recent searches). This distinct purpose separates it from sibling tools like memory_recent (shows recent items) and memory_search (searches).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like memory_recent or memory_search. The description implies use for aggregate summaries, but does not state exclusions or prerequisites. Adequate but minimal.

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