knowledge_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes the scope of the aggregates it returns, which is genuine added context, but says nothing about result volume or formatting (though an output schema exists).

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence that lists exactly what the overview contains, with no filler or redundancy. Every clause names a concrete piece of returned data.

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-argument, read-only statistics tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers what is reported. It stops short of explaining how the counts are scoped (all time? per workspace?), which would fully close the loop.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. No parameter semantics are needed or missing.

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 returns an overview of the memory store, enumerating concrete contents (records per source, versions, graph nodes/edges, last retrievals). That is enough to tell it apart from typical search/read siblings, but it never names which sibling to prefer for detail (e.g. get_history, get_changes, graph_neighbors).

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?

There is no statement about when to call this versus alternatives such as get_history, get_changes, or graph_neighbors, and no prerequisites or cost context. The agent must infer from the name that this is an inventory/summary call rather than a detail call.

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