rememb_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states 'Safe, read-only operation with no side effects,' which covers safety and mutability. However, it lacks details on performance (e.g., response time) or potential errors, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by behavioral context and usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's efficiently structured in two sentences, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and usage. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from hinting at the return format (e.g., structured data with the listed metrics), leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter details, focusing on the tool's purpose instead. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't introduce unnecessary complexity.

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 specific verbs ('Return memory usage statistics') and resources ('memory store'), listing concrete metrics like total entries, size, dates, and counts. It distinguishes from siblings like rememb_clear (cleanup) and rememb_read (specific entries) by focusing on aggregate 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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'to give the user an overview of their memory store or to decide if cleanup is needed.' It distinguishes from alternatives by implying that other tools (e.g., rememb_clear for cleanup) are for actions based on this overview, providing clear context for usage.

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