memory_stats

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains dormant_count behavior (untouched 90+ days, resting signal, auto-wake), states memory is never auto-forgotten, and clarifies flag_stale deprecation and rationale.

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?

Description is slightly lengthy but front-loaded with clear purpose. Each section adds value, covering usage, behavior, and parameter details. Could be more concise but still effective.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameter behavior, deprecation, behavioral quirks, and companion tool references.

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%, but description adds meaning: 'namespace scopes the stats to a single namespace; omit for global.' and 'flag_stale is deprecated and ignored.' Explains each parameter's semantics beyond the 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 'Return health statistics for the memory store' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by listing monitoring use cases and mentioning per-namespace breakdown, positioning alongside memory_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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'Use to monitor memory growth, identify dormant memories, and get a per-namespace breakdown...' and 'Call at session start alongside memory_context.' Also warns about flag_stale deprecation.

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