relationship_stats

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

The description only says 'Get statistics' but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, read-only nature, or what the statistics entail. With no annotations, the description fails to adequately inform the agent about the tool's behavior.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and directly states the tool's purpose.

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's name 'relationship_stats' and siblings like 'memory_stats', the description is too brief. It does not specify what statistics are returned or how it differs from similar tools, making it incomplete for an effective tool selection.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The baseline is 4, but the description is vague about what 'statistics' means. An output schema exists, but the description does not add meaning beyond the schema.

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 returns statistics about memory relationships in the knowledge graph. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'memory_stats', which could be confused.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'memory_stats' or 'retrieval_quality_stats'. The context signals show many sibling tools, but the description offers no usage context.

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