get_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. The verb 'Return' weakly signals a read-only operation overshadowed by no param dependencies, but it does not disclose whether stats are scoped to all data, whether results are deterministic, or whether any side effects occur. Basic behavior is clear, but deeper transparency is limited.

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 front-loaded sentence: the verb and resource appear first, followed by a compact list of concrete stats. Every word adds value and there is no filler or repetition.

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 has no params and no output schema, so the description must clarify what the caller receives. It lists stat categories but not their exact structure, ordering, or labeling, leaving some ambiguity about the response shape and the overall scope of the stats.

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 input schema is empty and parameter count is zero, so the schema coverage is vacuously 100%. Per the baseline for a zero-parameter tool, no additional parameter semantics are needed; the description's aggregate dimensions are not tied to any args.

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 uses a clear verb and resource ('Return aggregate stats') and enumerates meaningful dimensions (total, per-project, per-tag, oldest/newest, most-accessed). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like list_memories, though it never explicitly names the memory domain, which is only implied by the sibling context.

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 guidance is given about when to choose get_stats over list_memories, summarize_session, or other siblings. The aggregation purpose is implicit, but there is no explicit scenario or exclusion to help an agent decide between tools.

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