memory_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Report' strongly implies a read-only operation and the description discloses what it reports, but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify memories or mention any side effects, permissions, or freshness constraints. For a simple stats tool this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 covers all essential information without wasted words. Every phrase contributes meaning.

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 zero-parameter read-only reporting tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what kind of information to expect, though it could slightly improve by explicitly contrasting with list_memories or noting that this is an aggregate view.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none to document, which is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('memories'), and clarifies the scope by naming three concrete facets: storage location, count, and model. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_memories, which would return entries rather than aggregate statistics.

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 this tool is for aggregate memory statistics, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over list_memories or search_memory. An agent can infer the intended use from the content, but there is no direct guidance about alternatives or exclusions.

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