stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It describes the output components (total count, counts by type/tier, timestamps) but does not discuss side effects, auth needs, or rate limits. Since it is a read operation, the description is largely transparent. The existence of an output schema further clarifies the return structure.

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 description is extremely concise: two clear sentences that front-load the action and then provide usage guidance. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema. The description covers purpose and guidance well but omits any explanation of the project parameter, which is needed for complete understanding. The output schema likely describes return values, so the description is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 one optional parameter 'project' with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving the agent unaware of how to use or the effect of specifying a project. Even though it is optional, the lack of explanation is a gap.

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 clearly states that the tool returns memory statistics including total count, counts by type and tier, and timestamps. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_memories or list_memories that return individual memories, and from recall which retrieves by relevance.

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 explicitly specifies when to use the tool: for an overview of the knowledge base, checking memory counts, or seeing distribution across types and tiers. This provides clear guidance on context, though it does not mention when not to use it.

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