mempalace_graph_stats

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

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses the tool's behavior: it is a read-only operation that returns counts of rooms, tunnels, and edges. It does not mention potential side effects or performance characteristics, but the scope is simple and unlikely to be destructive.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Palace graph overview') and efficiently lists the output contents. No extraneous information.

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 absence of an output schema and parameters, the description provides a reasonable account of what the tool returns. It could be slightly more explicit about the output format or scope, but it is sufficient for understanding the tool's function.

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 zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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 specifies a clear verb ('overview') and resource ('palace graph'), and lists the specific metrics (total rooms, tunnel connections, edges between wings). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual elements like drawers or tunnels.

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 the tool is for obtaining high-level graph statistics, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like mempalace_list_* or mempalace_kg_stats. No exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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