memory_stats

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does the most valuable part of that job by enumerating the returned fields (vector count, dimension, metric, cascade settings, host information), which substitutes for the absent output schema. It does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only and side-effect free, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The purpose statement comes first and the return-shape detail follows as supporting information, which is the right ordering for an agent scanning for relevance.

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 no-parameter diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies enough: what is measured, which collection it applies to, and what the response object contains. What is missing is whether 'health diagnostics' implies any checks or thresholds beyond raw counters, and confirmation that the call is safe and cheap to repeat.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is required by presenting the call as a simple retrieval scoped to a fixed collection.

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 leads with a specific verb+resource pair ('Get operational statistics and health diagnostics') and scopes it to a named collection, 'agent_cognitive_memories_129'. It never names a sibling, but the diagnostics/stats function is self-evidently distinct from the remember/recall/forget/link operations listed alongside 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to reach for when it needs health or sizing information about the memory store. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it, no mention of cost or frequency, and no named alternative for related informational needs.

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