memory_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; '查看' (view) plus the enumeration of read-only summary fields implies a non-mutating diagnostic call, and it tells the agent what data comes back even without an output schema. It does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, permissions required, or cost, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the resource and its returned contents, and a second short clause supplies the usage cue. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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-param read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers both what it returns and when to reach for it. The only minor gap is the absence of any statement about freshness, ordering, or cost of the call.

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 the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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 concrete verb and resource ('查看记忆库概览') and enumerates exactly what the overview contains: card totals, type and source distributions, recent updates. That clearly separates it from memory_search/memory_get as a metadata-summary tool, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives an actionable trigger: call it first when you are unsure what the library contains or want to confirm retrieval scope. That is real when-to-use guidance but stops short of naming the alternative (e.g. 'then use memory_search to retrieve') or stating when not to use it.

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