memory_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists output contents and leaves read-only nature, data scope, freshness, and any potential side effects implicit. It is not misleading, but it does not meaningfully go beyond the tool's name.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and deliverable, then lists the output components. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name's meaning.

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 parameterless summary tool, the description covers the main output elements and is adequate for an agent to know what to expect. It does not define the exact semantics of the counts or list ordering, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description usefully identifies what the no-argument call returns, which satisfies the minimal semantic need for such a tool.

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 states a clear deliverable: a statistical summary of the memory library, and enumerates its concrete components (状态数/动作数/实体列表/动作类型列表). It is distinguishable from siblings like memory_trend or memory_anomaly, though it does not explicitly name them as alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_trend or memory_anomaly. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context are provided; usage must be inferred entirely from the name and content list.

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