Novyx MCP

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation, which the description aligns with by using 'Get.' The description adds value by specifying it's for the 'current account' and hinting at the return content (e.g., 'total memories, average importance'), but doesn't detail rate limits, auth needs, or data freshness. With annotations covering safety, this earns a baseline 3 for adding some context beyond annotations.

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 concise and well-structured, with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another detailing the return format. It's front-loaded with the core function, and every sentence adds value (e.g., the return info is useful since output schema exists but isn't detailed here). Minor improvement could be integrating return details more seamlessly, but it's efficient overall.

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 0 parameters, readOnlyHint annotation, and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the tool's purpose and hints at return values, which compensates for not detailing the output schema. For a simple read-only stats tool, this provides enough context, though adding usage guidelines would enhance completeness.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly omits parameter details, focusing on the tool's purpose and output. This aligns with the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools, as it avoids unnecessary repetition and adds semantic clarity about what the tool does.

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's purpose with 'Get memory statistics for the current account,' specifying the verb ('Get') and resource ('memory statistics'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_memories' or 'space_memories' by focusing on aggregated statistics rather than listing individual memories. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'cortex_insights' might also provide analytics), keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or compare it to siblings like 'cortex_insights' or 'audit' that might offer related data. This lack of usage context leaves the agent to infer based on tool names alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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