memory_stats

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get counts') and indicates global scope ('in the system'). However, does not disclose performance implications or caching behavior. Adequate for a simple stat tool.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action, no wasted words. Appropriately concise.

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 no output schema, description specifies the types of counts returned (keys, memories, links). This is sufficient for a simple stat tool, though it could optionally describe the return format (e.g., object or separate fields). Highly complete relative to complexity.

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?

No parameters, baseline score of 4 as per guidelines. Description adds no param info but none 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?

Description states exactly what the tool does: get counts of keys, memories, and links. The verb 'get' and specific resource 'counts of keys, memories, and links' are clear and distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_memories' or 'read_key'.

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?

Implied usage for obtaining a system overview, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use. No alternatives mentioned. Could be improved by indicating when this is preferable over other tools.

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