mnemonic_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It uses 'Get' which implies a read-only operation and lists expected returns, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no special permissions, or any other behavioral traits such as performance considerations. For a straightforward stats tool this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 highly concise: one opening line, a neat bullet list of return values, and a single closing sentence. Every element earns its place, and the most important information ('Get memory statistics') is front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no nested objects, output schema present) the description is nearly complete. It covers the core purpose and return categories. It does not explicitly address when to prefer it over similar tools or confirm read-only behavior, but those gaps are minor for this low-complexity tool.

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 baseline is 4. The schema already covers everything (empty object) and the description need not add parameter details. No additional semantics are required or provided, but none are needed.

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 'Get memory statistics' with a specific verb and resource, and the bullet list of return values (total count, weight distribution, tags, pinned/emotional counts) clearly distinguishes it from sibling CRUD/list/search tools. It is unambiguous and specific.

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 phrase 'Useful for understanding your memory landscape' provides a clear context for when to use this tool, implying it is for high-level aggregate insights rather than individual record retrieval. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, which would warrant a 5.

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