stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool returns counts and events, implying a read-only nature. However, it does not explicitly state that no state is modified, nor does it mention any potential side effects or data freshness. The inclusion of 'and so on' also leaves ambiguity about the full set of statistics returned.

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 two sentences, with the first clearly stating the tool's purpose and the second providing useful detail. No words are wasted, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action. It is appropriately concise.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should fully specify what is returned. It lists several concrete examples but weakens it with 'and so on,' leaving room for ambiguity. For a simple no-parameter tool, this is adequate but not complete enough to be fully self-sufficient.

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 reflects this completely (100% coverage). The description therefore needs no parameter-specific semantics. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, which is appropriate here since the description adds context about the nature of the output without needing to explain 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?

The description clearly states 'Return memory statistics' with a specific verb and resource, and then elaborates on the types of statistics (counts by type and tier, access events, links). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like forget or remember, which perform actions rather than reporting information.

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 intended usage is implied: use this tool when you need memory statistics. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like consolidation_candidates or skill_candidates, nor any exclusion criteria. The context suggests it for general stats, but the description could be more direct about its role among siblings.

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