memvid_stats

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds minimal context beyond this - it specifies the tool shows statistics, but doesn't describe what statistics are included, format of output, or any behavioral constraints. With annotations covering the safety profile, this meets the lower bar but adds limited 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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point: 'Show statistics for a memory file'. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, good annotations covering safety), the description is adequate but has gaps. There's no output schema, and the description doesn't explain what statistics are shown or the return format. The annotations provide good safety context, but for a statistics tool, users might want to know what metrics are included. It's minimally viable but could be more complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with the parameter 'file' fully documented as 'Path to the .mv2 memory file'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Show statistics for a memory file' clearly states the verb ('Show') and resource ('memory file'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'memvid_status' or 'memvid_view' which might also provide status information about memory files, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'memvid_status' and 'memvid_view' that might overlap in functionality, there's no indication of when this specific statistics tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other informational tools.

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