stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does indicate that the data reflects the current state ('right now'), implying a real-time snapshot. However, it doesn't mention whether the operation is read-only or pure, any potential performance costs, or whether it reflects the entire graph or a subset. The description is minimal but not misleading.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose (graph size, tier distribution, most-active nodes). Every word contributes to conveying what the tool does. It is appropriately brief for a stats tool with no parameters, though it could mention output format or examples to slightly improve clarity.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is the sole source of context. It specifies the three key statistics (size, tier distribution, most-active nodes) and the temporal aspect (right now). This is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool returns, though it doesn't detail the exact format or structure of the output, which is acceptable for a simple stats endpoint.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema covers everything (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter details because none exist. This is the baseline case where no additional semantic information is needed.

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's function: it reports graph size, tier distribution, and the most-active nodes. This is specific and distinct from the sibling tools, which focus on operations like remembering, connecting, or recalling. It could be slightly more descriptive about what 'size' means (e.g., node count vs edge count), but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It doesn't state that this is the go-to for overview statistics, or mention any prerequisites or ordering (e.g., run after adding nodes). An agent would have to infer from the name that it's for general stats, but no explicit context is provided.

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