stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the specific types of statistics returned, which conveys what the tool outputs. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive or read-only, though 'Get' strongly implies this. The description adds meaningful detail about the nature of the returned data.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and lists the key outputs. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or unnecessary information. This is an exemplary level of conciseness.

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?

Despite the absence of an output schema, the description enumerates the specific statistics returned, making the tool's behavior clear. Given the simplicity of the tool and zero parameters, this description is fully complete and self-contained.

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 is trivially complete (100% coverage). The description does not need to explain parameter semantics since there are none, and it appropriately focuses on the output. This matches the baseline score of 4 for tools with no 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('memory statistics'), and enumerates the specific categories returned (total memories, relationships, vectors, patterns learned). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'remember' and 'recall', which focus on individual memories rather than aggregate stats.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context of 'memory statistics' implies it is for viewing overall memory health, but no direct guidance is provided, so the usage context is only implied.

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