Store statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the trailing "Read-only, takes no arguments" largely restates them plus the empty schema. The only added value is disclosing that the result includes the backing database file path, which is useful but thin against an already-complete safety profile.

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?

Front-loaded with the returned fields, then usage and alternatives, then the read-only/no-arg note. Compact and free of filler, though the trailing restatement of annotations is mildly redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so by enumerating all four reported items. Combined with the sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to select and call it.

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 takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4, and the description correctly confirms "takes no arguments," consistent with the empty schema. There is nothing further to disambiguate.

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?

States a specific verb ("Report") and enumerates exactly what is reported: total entries, archived entries, database file location, and scope list. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like memory_scopes and memory_healthcheck, which are named explicitly.

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?

Gives explicit use conditions ("quick overview", "check which database file this connection uses") and routes to three alternatives with the condition that selects each: memory_scopes for per-scope counts, memory_embed_status for search coverage, memory_healthcheck to verify the store works.

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