memory_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Statistics' implies a read-only operation, but the description never states side effects, auth requirements, or that it is non-mutating; the returned metrics are output content, not a behavioral disclosure.

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 front-loaded noun phrase with a parenthetical metric list. No sentence is wasted and the core purpose appears first.

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 zero-parameter stats tool with no output schema, naming the returned metrics is sufficient to invoke it correctly. The only modest gap is the absence of a read-only assurance and any sibling-routing context.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to add or omit. The baseline for a no-param tool applies.

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+resource: 'statistics' for 'long-term memory', and lists the metrics returned (count, tokens, importance, by type). It is generally distinguishable from siblings like memory_list and system_stats, but does not explicitly position itself against them.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. The description is a label of contents rather than an invocation guide, leaving the agent to infer when memory_stats is preferable to memory_list, memory_recall, or system_stats.

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