synapse_memory_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the output (count and time span) but does not explicitly declare that the operation is read-only or non-mutating. It also does not mention behavior when no temporal facts exist or any potential side effects. Since it is called 'stats', it likely is read-only, but that is not stated, which is a gap in transparency.

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 a single short sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Quick stats') and immediately specifies the key outputs. There is no filler or wasted words. It is concise and appropriately structured for a zero-parameter utility 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 that the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists (though its contents are not shown), and the description covers the essential returned metrics (count and time span), the description is largely complete. It does not mention whether the stats are scoped to any subset or if they reflect the entire memory store, but that is likely implicit given no parameters. Minor omission of edge-case behavior (e.g., empty store) prevents a perfect score.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the scoring rules. The description does not need to add parameter details since there are none. The schema coverage is 100% (empty properties), and the description correctly focuses on what the tool does rather than parameters.

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 states the tool returns quick stats about temporal facts (count) and time span. It is specific about the resource (temporal facts) and the output metrics. It distinguishes from sibling tools like synapse_recall or synapse_timeline, which are likely query or retrieval operations, by focusing on aggregate 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 usage for getting a quick overview of stored temporal facts, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like synapse_timeline or query_knowledge. No exclusion criteria or context is provided. For a simple stats tool, the intended use is fairly obvious, but the absence of any guidance on alternatives or edge cases leaves room for ambiguity.

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