memory_stats

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

The description indicates a read-only operation ('Get statistics'), which is appropriate for a tool with no parameters. Since no annotations are provided, the description adequately conveys the tool's safety and intent, though it could explicitly state it has no side effects.

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, efficient sentence of 11 words that directly states the tool's purpose. No extraneous information is included.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists (not shown), the description is sufficiently complete. It identifies the two key statistics areas (LanceDB chunks, cache status). Minor improvement could be mentioning additional output details, but the schema likely covers that.

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 no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description does not need to add parameter meanings, earning a baseline score of 4 for parameterless tools.

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 it retrieves statistics about the Midos memory system, specifically mentioning LanceDB chunks and cache status. This verb-resource pair is distinct from sibling tools like hive_status or pool_status, which target different subsystems.

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 when memory system statistics are needed, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like hive_status or pool_status. No exclusions or conditionals are provided.

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