knowmind_stats

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

Goes well past the annotations: the deprecation window (removed 2027-03-31) and the guarantee that behavior stays unchanged until then are lifecycle facts no annotation can express, and 'read scope suffices; takes no parameters' documents the auth requirement and call shape. It also discloses the return contents (three count categories), which matters since there is no output schema.

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 deprecation warning is front-loaded, followed by purpose, routing guidance, and call requirements — four clauses, no filler, nothing repeated for its own sake.

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?

Complete for a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema: it covers purpose, return shape, migration path, auth scope, and lifetime. An agent has everything needed to decide and call 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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4, and the description correctly confirms 'takes no parameters' rather than inventing inputs. There is no additional parameter meaning to add.

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 verb and resource ('Return current counts for the tenant corpus') and enumerates exactly what is counted: memories, graph edges and vector chunks. It also names its own replacement (knowmind_get_stats) and the entry-listing siblings it is not, so an agent can separate it from the other stats/list tools without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('gauge how much has been stored') and explicit when-not plus alternatives ('for the actual entries use knowmind_list_recent or knowmind_recall'). It also routes future callers to knowmind_get_stats with a concrete sunset date.

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