Memory Stats

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds the specific focus on statistics and health, which is useful context. It does not disclose details about the returned metrics or whether the data is cached/current, but the presence of an output schema lowers the burden.

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 four-word phrase that is immediately scannable and contains no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name or title. It front-loads the entire meaning with maximum economy.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and no nested objects, 'Database statistics and health' is enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. The output schema can carry the return-value detail, so no additional description is required.

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 zero parameters and the schema explicitly says 'No parameters required', so parameter documentation is unnecessary. This is the zero-parameter baseline case where the description does not need to add parameter meaning.

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 identifies a specific resource (the database) and subject area (statistics and health), which clearly separates it from the memory CRUD and relationship siblings. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'show', so it stops just short of a fully specified purpose.

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 phrase 'statistics and health' implies this is the read-only inspection/status tool, and no sibling covers that function, so the intended use is reasonably clear. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer it or when not to use it, leaving the guidance implicit.

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