memory_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does substantial work: it discloses that the tool reports statistics, identifies the bound database, and explains why that reporting matters. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the verb 'Get' strongly implies it for a zero-parameter stats tool.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the additional explanation of database-drift detection earns its place because it tells an agent why the tool matters. The wording is a bit verbose for such a simple tool, but the length is justified by the non-obvious context.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential functional context including the unique database-identity reporting. It stops short of 5 because it does not acknowledge or differentiate the closely related sibling tools that also provide memory analytics or insights.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to add. The baseline of 4 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('stored memories'), and also identifies a distinctive secondary output (the bound database identity). It falls short of a 5 because it does not distinguish this tool from sibling memory_insights or memory_digest, which could plausibly offer overlapping statistics.

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 a key use case: detecting database drift by reporting which database the session is bound to. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus memory_insights or other memory analytics siblings, and no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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