memshelf_stats

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail by specifying the reported metrics (standing cost, shelved mass, compression ratio, savings from recalls), which goes beyond what annotations provide. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but these are acceptable omissions given the 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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and lacks any extraneous information. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It adequately covers the tool's behavior and the nature of the output. However, it omits any mention of prerequisites (e.g., shelf must be initialized) or edge cases, which slightly reduces completeness.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions are provided in the schema. The description does not elaborate on the 'shelf_path' parameter, its format, or valid values, relying solely on the schema's minimal description. This fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 tool reports the shelf's token economy including specific metrics like standing cost, shelved mass, compression ratio, and realized savings. It uses a specific verb ('report') and resource ('shelf's token economy'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., memshelf_shelve, memshelf_recall) which are mutating operations.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. While the tool is read-only (as indicated by annotations), the description itself does not clarify usage context or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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