memory_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 accurately describes a read-only operation ('Get statistics') and specifies the domains (LanceDB chunks, cache status). While it could mention potential performance impact or response size, the description is sufficient for a simple stat retrieval.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope. Every word adds value with no 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?

Given the absence of parameters and the presence of an output schema (as indicated by context signals), the description is fully complete. It identifies the tool's output domains without needing to repeat schema details. For a simple stats tool, no further context is necessary.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level detail because none exist, but it identifies the data returned (chunks, cache status), which implies the scope of the statistics.

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 retrieves statistics about the Midos memory system, specifying both LanceDB chunks and cache status. The verb 'get' paired with the resource 'memory statistics' is specific and distinguishes this tool from siblings like hive_status.

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 usage for obtaining memory system stats, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites. A simple stat-gathering tool may not require elaborate guidelines, but a score of 3 reflects the lack of explicit context.

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