knowmind_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds 'Read scope suffices', which is consistent with the annotations but does not introduce new behavioral details such as rate limits or side effects. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds minimal extra value.

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 concise, comprising two sentences, and is well-structured. It efficiently conveys the purpose, usage, and alternatives without unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse.

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 simple stats tool with no parameters, the description is complete: it defines the output (counts of corpus components), the purpose (gauge storage), and directs to alternatives. No additional context is required for an agent to use it correctly.

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 and the schema is empty. The description explicitly states 'takes no parameters', which reinforces the fact despite the schema already being empty. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the statement adds clarity without any ambiguity.

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 states the tool returns counts for the tenant corpus (memories, graph edges, vector chunks) and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools by directing users to knowmind_list_recent or knowmind_recall for actual entries. The verb 'Return' is specific and the resource scope is defined.

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 indicates when to use the tool ('to gauge how much has been stored') and also states when not to use it, pointing to alternatives for retrieving actual entries. This provides clear usage boundaries.

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