memory_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does convey that this is a non-mutating inventory read returning aggregate counts, but says nothing about permissions, cost/rate limits, or whether empty collections are included.

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?

Two short sentences with the payload described first and the rationale second — front-loaded and near waste-free. The second sentence is mildly redundant but justifies the tool's existence, so it 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of return-shape information, and it names the two key fields (collections, chunk counts). That is sufficient for a zero-parameter tool, with only minor gaps such as output format or ordering.

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 is 4; there is no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for.

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 (get) and resource (memory-service statistics) and specifies the returned content: collection names and chunk counts per collection. That distinguishes it from memory_search and memory_write, though neither sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Useful to see what has been indexed' implies a discovery/inventory use case, so an agent can infer when to reach for it over search or write. It does not state exclusions (e.g., use memory_search to inspect content) or prerequisites, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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