memorable_get_stats

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does at least disclose the returned fields, which signals an aggregate read-only operation. It does not say whether counts are scoped to a workspace/user, whether the call is cheap or rate-limited, or how fresh the numbers are.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the parenthetical listing the metric categories is the most efficient possible way to convey scope in one line.

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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description's job is to say what comes back and it does so by naming the three metric families. Minor omission: no statement of scoping (system-wide vs. per-workspace) that would matter for interpreting the counts.

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 there is nothing for the schema to document and no parameter semantics to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies.

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 and resource ("Get system statistics from Memorable") and enumerates exactly which metrics are returned, so the agent knows what it will receive without opening a schema. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the enumeration makes the boundary self-evident.

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?

Provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. Usage is only implied by the listed metrics — an agent can infer it is the cheap aggregate summary to call before listing or searching memories, but that inference is not stated.

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