mem_stats

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

No annotations are provided, but the tool takes zero parameters and has an output schema, so the behavioral surface is small. The description implies a read-only inspection and lists the returned fields, but says nothing about side effects, auth needs, or whether the index is recomputed or cached — modest but not rich disclosure.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the return contents front-loaded. The second sentence adds genuine routing value rather than restating the first, though it stops short of the differentiation that would make it fully earned.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an existing output schema, the description covers purpose and a usage moment adequately; the output schema carries the return shape. The only notable gap is disambiguation from the very similarly named mem_status sibling.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly avoids inventing parameters.

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 (Return) and resource (memory index statistics), and even enumerates the returned fields: total chunks, sources, storage backend. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling mem_status, leaving ambiguity an agent must resolve on its own.

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 sentence 'Use this to quickly assess how many memories are indexed before searching' gives one clear usage context. It names no exclusions and never contrasts with mem_status, mem_list, or mem_search, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone when stats is preferable to status.

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