Astria-Index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively documents the return structure (counts by category, sessions, notes, insights, embeddings) and provides crucial edge-case information that all counts are zero for fresh instances, though it omits explicit mention of the read-only nature.

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 employs clear structural sections ('Use this when:', 'Returns:') and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence provides distinct value, from the overview definition to usage scenarios to return value specifications and edge-case behavior.

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's simplicity (zero parameters) and existence of an output schema, the description provides comprehensive coverage by detailing the return object structure and the fresh-instance edge case. The coverage is sufficient for an agent to understand both invocation and expected results.

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 contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4. The description reinforces this by including an example invocation `my_memory_stats()` with empty parentheses, confirming no arguments are required.

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 opens with 'See a dashboard overview of your entire memory network,' providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly positions the tool as an aggregate statistics function, distinguishing it from siblings like `get_note`, `my_insights`, and `list_memories` which handle specific retrieval rather than overview metrics.

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 includes an explicit 'Use this when:' section listing three specific scenarios (starting conversations, checking growth, reporting utilization). While it provides excellent contextual guidance for appropriate usage, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide negative constraints (when not to use).

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