memory_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Automatic index' which implies a read-only aggregation, but it does not explicitly state that it makes no changes to memory, nor does it disclose any potential side effects or performance implications. The description hints at passivity but fails to clearly disclose the non-destructive nature.

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, compact sentence that conveys the tool's core function without any fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose ('Automatic index of everything in memory') and lists the grouping dimensions efficiently. Every word adds value.

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 that the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential information: what it does (counts by various dimensions) and its scope (everything in memory). It does not describe the output format, but the presence of an output schema mitigates that need. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand when and why to invoke it.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (no properties). The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. No additional parameter detail is required.

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 tool's purpose: providing counts of memory items grouped by type, author, lifecycle status, project, and top tags. This is a specific verb (index/count) and resource (memory), and it differentiates from siblings like search_memory (search) and list_recent (list) by focusing on aggregated statistics over everything in memory.

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 description implies this is for getting an overview of memory contents, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like list_recent or search_memory. There is no mention of 'use when you need a high-level summary' or exclusions, leaving the usage context somewhat implicit.

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