tool_get_memory_stats

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

Without annotations, the description implies read-only behavior via '查看' (view), but lacks explicit statements on side effects, auth, or rate limits. It adds some context but not full transparency.

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?

Description is concise, front-loads purpose, then use cases, then parameter info. No unnecessary text.

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?

For a stats retrieval tool with no output schema, the description lists what is included (total memories, type distribution, etc.), which is fairly complete. Could elaborate on return format but not critical.

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 0%, but the description explains the sole parameter 'detail_level' with default and allowed values (summary/detailed), adding meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 overall memory stats, listing specific components (total memories, type distribution, etc.). It gives a specific verb 'view' and resource 'memory space', and though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, the purpose is distinct.

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?

Explicitly mentions two use cases: at conversation start and when user asks about memory amount. While it doesn't state when not to use, the contexts are clear and sufficient.

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