memora

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly identifies the read-only nature via 'Get', but fails to mention computational cost, caching behavior, or what specific metrics are included (though an output schema exists to cover return values).

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?

Single sentence of 7 words with zero redundancy. The action is front-loaded and every word earns its place. Appropriately sized for a zero-parameter statistics retrieval tool.

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 the existence of an output schema and zero input parameters, the description covers the minimal necessary ground. However, given the crowded sibling namespace (26+ tools), the description lacks guidance on what specific insights this provides versus memory_insights or memory_clusters.

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?

Input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage. With zero parameters, the baseline score is 4 as there are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond the schema.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('statistics and analytics about stored memories'), clearly distinguishing from siblings like memory_create or memory_search. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from memory_insights, which may also return analytics.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_list, memory_insights, or memory_clusters. No mention of prerequisites or conditions where this is preferred.

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