Memory Statistics

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 operation via 'Get', but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The word 'statistics' is ambiguous.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb. It is concise but lacks expansion, which might be acceptable for a simple tool but risks under-specification.

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 simplicity (0 params, output schema exists), the description is partially complete. It states the core function but fails to clarify what 'memory statistics' entails or how it differs from similar tools like performance_metrics.

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?

There are no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the description adds no param info beyond schema. Baseline score is appropriate as it is impossible to add more meaning for zero parameters.

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 'Get memory statistics' specifies a verb and resource, but is vague about what 'memory statistics' refers to (e.g., application vs. system memory). It does not distinguish from sibling tools like performance_metrics or optimize_memory, which likely provide related but different data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as performance_metrics or optimize_memory. The user must infer usage from the name alone.

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