knowmind_get_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still contributes the auth requirement ('Read scope suffices') and the fact that it takes no parameters, which the annotations do not convey. It stops short of noting anything about cost, caching or freshness of the counts, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 sentences: the first declares the return content, the second covers usage, alternatives and prerequisites. No filler, and the most important information (what is counted) is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return and it does so by enumerating the three count categories. Combined with the read-scope note and the zero-parameter statement, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 confirms this explicitly ('takes no parameters'), which removes any doubt about supplying arguments. Nothing further can be added about 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Return current counts for the tenant corpus') and enumerates exactly what is counted: memories, graph edges and vector chunks. It explicitly differentiates itself from knowmind_list_recent and knowmind_recall, so an agent can route correctly without opening sibling schemas.

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?

States the use case directly ('Use to gauge how much has been stored') and names the alternatives to pick instead when actual entries are wanted ('for the actual entries use knowmind_list_recent or knowmind_recall'). It also gives the prerequisite ('Read scope suffices'), leaving nothing to inference.

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