memoryos_get_support_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 of disclosing side effects, permissions, or read-only nature. The description only says 'Fetch', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or whether it requires any authentication or permissions. This lack of transparency could lead to incorrect assumptions about side effects.

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 with no redundant words or vague phrasing. It is well-structured and immediately conveys the purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The description lacks essential context about the return value. It mentions 'aggregate stats' but does not define what statistics are included (e.g., total counts, average metrics, time ranges). Without an output schema or further description, an agent cannot anticipate the shape or content of the response, which may lead to incorrect handling of the result. This is a significant gap for a tool that returns data.

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 and the schema is fully covered (100% coverage as there are no properties). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, but since none exist, the agent can infer from the schema that no arguments are needed. The description's brevity means it does not contradict or omit parameter details, so a high score is appropriate.

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 'Fetch Customer Support schema aggregate stats' clearly identifies the action (fetch) and the resource (aggregate stats for the Customer Support schema). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'memoryos_list_support_customers' which list individual records, and 'memoryos_get_user_stats' which targets user stats rather than schema-level aggregates. However, it does not specify which aggregate stats are returned (e.g., counts, averages), leaving some ambiguity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as 'memoryos_list_support_customers' or 'memoryos_get_user_stats'. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent decide between fetching schema aggregates versus other related operations.

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