memory.stats

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden; 'Show' implies a non-mutating read, and it discloses what the payload contains (size, coverage, top patterns), which is genuinely useful. However it says nothing about read-only guarantees, scope, or freshness of the stats.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the returned fields are packed into the same line.

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?

With no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned metrics. It is nearly self-sufficient, only missing a note on scope or refresh behavior.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('code memory statistics') and enumerates the content (size, coverage, top patterns), which separates it from siblings like memory.recall or code.map. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it falls just short of 5.

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 on when to reach for this versus memory.recall, code.map, or code.symbols, and no prerequisites stated. Usage is only implied by the word 'statistics'.

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