memory.stats

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

No annotations exist, so description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states the tool never returns content, which is important. However, it doesn't confirm read-only, side effects, or auth needs.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant words. Each sentence adds distinct value (what is returned, comparison to dashboard).

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?

Describes specific return fields (count, size, times) which compensates for missing output schema. Lacks mention of pagination or errors, but acceptable for a simple stats tool.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter described; the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's description of 'agent_identifier'.

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 returns usage statistics (memory count, total size, last access times) and distinguishes it from content-returning siblings with 'never content' and the dashboard analogy.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies it's for stats, but doesn't compare to other memory tools (e.g., memory.recall, memory.search) or specify prerequisites.

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