engram_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Return' implies a read-only, non-destructive call and the enumerated items describe the shape of the returned counts, which is useful, but it omits scope (whole château vs. a single wing/room) and never states explicitly that nothing is mutated.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. Every element (statistics, and the four counted categories) earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must hint at the return value, and it does by naming the four counted categories. It stops short of stating format or whether counts are scoped/global, which is the only remaining gap for a zero-arg status tool.

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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The parenthetical enumeration of countable entities is a small bonus that clarifies what the statistics cover.

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 ('Return') plus resource ('château statistics') and enumerates the counted entities (wings, rooms, drawers, closets), so the agent knows this is an aggregate counts tool. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near-neighbours like engram_audit, engram_list_wings, or engram_list_rooms, which a reader could easily confuse with it.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer this over engram_audit or the list_* tools. The only cue is the word 'statistics', leaving the agent to infer that this is a cheap overview call.

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