memory_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation ('get counts') and discloses no side effects, but it does not elaborate on what exactly is included (e.g., expired memories, links across all namespaces) or the return format beyond what the output schema likely provides. This is adequate for a simple stats tool but not rich.

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 that immediately states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, and the structure is ideal for quick comprehension.

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 tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema that presumably documents return values. The description sufficiently communicates the scope ('counts of keys, memories, and links') without needing further detail. It could mention that it's a read-only stats endpoint, but the verb 'get' already implies this.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level detail because none is needed. The schema-driven coverage is effectively perfect, and the description's mention of keys, memories, and links aligns with the tool's purpose.

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 function: retrieving counts of keys, memories, and links. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like recall or list_memories, which deal with individual items rather than aggregate statistics.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it should be used for aggregate overviews instead of listing memories, nor does it mention any exclusions or trade-offs. The context is implied but not stated.

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