Memory statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming no destructive side effects. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the specific computations it performs (counts, average confidence, handoff states) and the integrity check of the hash chain. This informs the agent about the tool's analytical nature and potential complexity (e.g., re-walking hashes).

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 sentence that efficiently lists the tool's capabilities without redundant words. It is front-loaded with the main action ('counts') and covers all key outputs. However, the list-like structure could be slightly more readable (e.g., separating distinct items with commas or formatting), but it remains concise and informative.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns (counts, averages, states, integrity check result). It does not explicitly state the return format or confirm that it returns a summary object, but the implied items give sufficient context for an agent to understand the output nature.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter 'verify', which already explains its meaning ('Also re-walk every hash'). The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 with a specific verb ('counts') and lists the exact resources and metrics it covers: per agent and scope, average confidence, handoff states, and an integrity check. This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like 'remember' and 'recall' which are about recording or retrieving memories, not summarizing 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 implies this tool is used for obtaining aggregate statistics and performing integrity checks, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'history' for chronological sequences, 'handoff' for state transitions). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so the guidance is only implicit.

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