vmn_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns statistics, but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only, describe side effects, explain what the statistics represent, or mention any constraints. This leaves the agent with only a surface-level understanding.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and scope, making it easy to parse quickly despite not being expansive.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool, the description is minimally viable: an agent knows the call has no inputs and returns statistics about the local vault. However, without an output schema, the description does not say which statistics are returned,, making the tool's behavior somewhat underspecified for an agent that must reason about results.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is complete and there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing ambiguous about an empty input schema.

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 action ('Return statistics') and the resource ('local Vanguard Memory Vault'). It distinguishes the tool's general purpose from write-oriented siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast it with similar informational siblings like vmn_index_status.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as vmn_index_status, vmn_list, or vmn_inspect. It implies the tool is for retrieving statistics but does not specify contexts, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools.

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