memory_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile for this read-only tool. The description adds only a list of reported metrics, which the output schema already provides, and gives no additional behavioral context such as auth needs, rate limits, or 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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads the resource and its metrics, the second gives the use case. No wasted words.

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 stats tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers purpose and usage adequately. It could be slightly richer about what the metrics mean or when to prefer other introspection tools, but nothing critical is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed because the schema is empty.

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?

States a specific resource ('Memory-bank vital signs') and enumerates the exact metrics returned (store occupancy vs capacity, hit rates, true-drop count, totals), so an agent knows what the tool does. However, it does not name a sibling or use a clear verb like 'get', so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use to gauge how much has been remembered or to diagnose why retrieval feels off.' It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative introspection tools (e.g., memory_agents, memory_toolset), so it gives clear context without exclusions.

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