get_memory_stats

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It discloses auto-detection of the current user and what the response summarizes, which is useful. However, it never explicitly states that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any permissions or side effects, leaving some behavioral burden unaddressed.

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 compact, scannable, and front-loaded with the core purpose. The optional parameter note, return summary, and use cases each occupy one short line with no filler.

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?

For a stats tool with an output schema, the description conveys scope, output categories, and use cases without needing to enumerate return fields. The only notable gap is the undocumented 'verbose' parameter and the implied but not enforced mutual exclusivity of user_id and agent_id.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains user_id and agent_id as optional filters with auto-detection fallback, adding real meaning. However, the 'verbose' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving one of three parameters semantically undocumented.

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?

Description opens with 'Get statistics about stored memories,' a specific verb and resource that clearly differentiates it from sibling list/get/search tools. It also states the return categories (counts by metadata type, date ranges, storage summary), reinforcing the purpose. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'Understanding memory usage, identifying cleanup opportunities, monitoring growth.' It also gives scoping guidance for user_id/agent_id and the auto-detection fallback. It does not state when not to use it or explicitly compare with alternatives such as search_memories or list_memories.

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