get_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get memory statistics', which implies a read operation, but does not state whether any authentication is required, whether results are cached, or what the output format is. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotations.

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 with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters. Every word earns its place, and nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 description is incomplete for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not specify what statistics are returned (e.g., count, size, last access times) or provide any context for when to use it. Given the tool's simplicity, it should at least mention the kind of statistics or offer a hint about its purpose relative to the memory system.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable since there are none to document. It does not need to compensate for schema gaps because there are no gaps.

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 a clear action 'Get' and a specific resource 'memory statistics', which distinguishes it from sibling tools that write, read, search, update, delete, or recall memories. However, it does not elaborate on what the statistics encompass, so it is clear but not fully detailed.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for overall memory metrics rather than individual memory content, nor does it suggest any specific scenario or prerequisite. The description leaves selection entirely to the agent.

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