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 clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Get') and lists the specific stats, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as return format, performance characteristics, or side effects. Given the simple nature of the tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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, front-loaded sentence. It starts with the verb 'Get' and immediately conveys the core purpose. Every word adds value, listing specific statistics without any filler or redundancy.

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-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is sufficiently complete. It clearly states what the tool returns (the key statistics), which is the essential information an agent needs. It could mention return format, but for a simple stats snapshot, the listed items are adequate.

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, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adequately describes what the output includes, which is more relevant than 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 statistics (total memories, relationships, vectors, patterns learned). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like remember, recall, and connect, which perform different actions.

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 the use case—checking overall memory health or statistics—but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or when not to use it, though the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer.

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