État de la mémoire

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, non-mutating, or safe to call. The content-focused description omits any side-effect or access-related context.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Vue d'ensemble') and enumerates the key output categories. No wasted words, easily scannable.

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 no annotations, no parameters, and no output schema, the description adequately lists the main return content (counters, top priorities, recent changes). It is reasonably complete for a simple stats tool, though it could explicitly mention the read-only nature for full completeness.

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 coverage is 100% (trivially). The baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds context about the output structure without needing to explain 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool's function as providing an overview of memory statistics, listing specific data elements (counters, top priorities, recent changes). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like memory_list and memory_search by focusing on aggregate stats rather than individual entries.

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 implies usage when an overview of memory health or statistics is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or explicit references to sibling tools.

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