memory-stats

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and no destructive hint, so the tool is clearly safe and non-mutating. The description adds is scoped to 'current project', clarifying it doesn't access global memory stats. No contradiction with annotations—the description aligns with the read-only, idempotent nature. Score is high because annotations do most of the work and the description complements without contradicting.

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?

A single 9-word sentence delivers the core purpose, which is front-loaded and concise. No extraneous information. However, it could be slightly more structured by hinting at return format or usage conditions, but given the tool's simplicity, it earns a 4 for efficiency.

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 has 1 optional parameter, no output schema, and good annotations, the description is fairly complete for a simple stats tool. It specifies scope (current project) and purpose (statistics), but lacks details on what statistics are returned (e.g., counts, sizes, timestamps) or how the optional path parameter affects results. With 9 sibling tools including a `stats` tool, more completeness would help disambiguate.

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 100%, so the single `path` parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add semantics beyond what the schema provides, but with full coverage, baseline 3 applies. Score raised to 4 because the description implies parameter optionality (no required parameters listed) and integrates it into the 'current project' goal, slightly contextualizing its use.

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 'Get statistics about stored memories for the current project' uses a specific verb ('Get', 'statistics') and resource ('stored memories') with a context qualifier ('current project'), making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from siblings like `search` (finding specific memories) and `index` (indexing operations), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling `stats`, which could be a similar statistics tool.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance is provided. The description implies it's for retrieving memory statistics, but there's no context on when to prefer this over siblings like `search` or `remember`. The sibling `stats` could be redundant, but no differentiation is offered.

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