Get memory statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. The description adds context about grouping by type and collection, which is useful but not extensive. No contradiction with annotations.

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 of 8 words. It is efficient, front-loaded, and contains no filler. Every word is necessary and earns its place.

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 with an output schema, the description is adequate. It states the tool's purpose and grouping dimensions. With the output schema present, not explaining return values is acceptable. However, it could briefly note the structure of the statistics (e.g., counts per type/collection) without overloading.

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?

There are no parameters to describe, and schema coverage is 100%. The description appropriately omits parameter details since none exist. It adds meaning by specifying what the statistics cover ('by type and collection').

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 specific verb ('Show') and clearly identifies the resource ('statistics about stored memories') with grouping dimensions ('by type and collection'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like list_memories (list vs stats) and recall (individual recall vs aggregated stats).

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 implies usage for aggregate statistics rather than listing individual memories, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_memories or recall. No exclusion criteria or typical use cases are stated.

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