memory_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It lists the return data (count, distributions, top tags, etc.) but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it mention performance implications or side effects. The name implies read-only behavior, but this is not confirmed.

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 well-structured with a brief overview, multiple examples, and a bullet list of return fields. While slightly verbose, each section adds value. It is front-loaded with the purpose.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values. All parameters are optional and described. The examples cover different use cases. Missing information includes potential pagination or limits on the number of memories processed, but overall it is complete enough for a stats tool.

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 input schema covers 75% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by showing usage examples that illustrate wildcard support in 'query', date format in 'timeRange', and combination of parameters. This goes beyond the schema alone.

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 'Get statistics about memories with optional filtering,' using a specific verb and resource. The examples further clarify the purpose, and the tool is distinct from siblings like 'recall' and 'remember' which focus on retrieval rather than statistics.

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 provides concrete usage examples showing various filtering options, which implicitly guides when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to sibling tools like 'recall' or 'consolidate'.

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