memory_count_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation ('count') and mentions optional filtering, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, performance characteristics, or error handling. The description doesn't contradict any 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by details on parameters and returns. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second elaborates on filtering, and the parameter/return sections provide essential usage information without redundancy.

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 low complexity (2 optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters with examples, and return structure. However, it lacks behavioral details like performance or error handling, which would be beneficial despite the output schema.

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 provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'namespace' and 'memory_type', including examples ('global', 'project:myapp', 'preference', 'decision', 'golden_rule'). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover all possible values or constraints.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Count memories with optional filters' and 'Provides a quick count of memories in the system'. It specifies the verb ('count') and resource ('memories'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'memory_list_tool' or 'memory_recall_tool', which might also involve memory operations.

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 context by mentioning 'optional filters' and 'quick count', suggesting this is for obtaining counts rather than detailed listings. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'memory_list_tool' or provide any exclusion criteria.

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