stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It correctly describes the tool as an information retrieval (dashboard) with no destructive side effects, but does not mention performance implications (e.g., might be expensive on large databases), concurrency behavior, or permission requirements. The level of transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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-organized: a one-line summary, then a bullet-like list of returned metrics, followed by parameter documentation. This front-loads the purpose and scans well. It could be slightly more concise by merging the parameter and returns sections, but remains efficient.

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 complexity (aggregating many metrics), limited parameters, and the presence of an output schema that documents the return structure, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what each section of the return value covers and how filtering works, leaving no major gaps.

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 explain parameters. It does so effectively: it states 'project restricts results to this project name' and 'agent_id restricts results to this agent namespace', and documents that empty values mean no filtering. This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's minimal 'Project' and 'Agent Id' titles.

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 'KPI dashboard for the memory database' and enumerates specific metrics returned (counts by type, project, scope, etc.), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'status' and 'health' that likely provide operational or health check information.

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 explains optional filtering by project or agent_id, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'status', 'health', or 'ingest'. It lacks explicit context on when it is appropriate to call stats or when to avoid it.

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