memory_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only observational role via 'vital signs' and 'gauge', but never explicitly states that it doesn't modify memory. For a stats tool, this is a minor gap, but an explicit read-only statement would improve 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?

The description is two sentences: the first lists what the tool provides, the second gives usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the key concept ('Memory-bank vital signs'). No fluff or redundancy.

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 diagnostic tool with an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete: it explains what data is returned (metrics) and when to use it. It doesn't need to describe return format since output schema exists. It could mention that no side effects occur, but that's a minor omission.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific information because none is needed. No deduction needed.

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 identifies the tool as a memory statistics/diagnostic tool, listing specific metrics (per-band sizes, capacities, hit rates, totals). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling retrieval/search tools by focusing on overall health rather than individual lookup. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'view', making it slightly less direct.

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 explicitly states two use cases: to gauge how much has been remembered and to diagnose retrieval issues. This gives clear guidance on when to use it, though it doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use it. Given the sibling tools are clearly for different purposes (search, get, etc.), the context is sufficient.

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