amem_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does convey that this is a local metrics lookup (read-only by implication) and what metrics are reported. It does not state that it is non-mutating explicitly, what the response shape looks like (no output schema exists), how "estimated" savings are computed, or whether results are cached/paginated. Adequate but thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 tight sentences: what it returns and its scoping are front-loaded, then the trigger condition. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, no wasted clauses.

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 3-parameter, all-optional stats tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and scope adequately but leaves the return structure unexplained — a meaningful omission for a metrics tool where the agent must know what fields come back. It also sidesteps the near-duplicate sibling entirely.

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?

Schema coverage is 67%: `days` and `scope` are documented in the schema, while `workspace` has no description anywhere. The prose reinforces scope semantics ("one workspace/repo or everything") and implies a time window with "usage over time", but adds no format or default detail beyond the schema. Matches the baseline-3 expectation at this coverage level.

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 resource (usage and savings stats) and enumerates the metrics returned — local lookup time, estimated tokens/ms saved, hit rate — plus the scope dimension (one workspace/repo vs everything). An agent can tell this is an analytics read tool. The gap: the sibling `amem_usage_report` is nearly synonymous and the description does nothing to separate the two.

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 second sentence gives a concrete trigger ("asked how much amem helped, how often it hit, or usage over time"), which is real when-to-use guidance. However, no exclusions or prerequisites are stated, and given a sibling named `amem_usage_report`, an agent has no basis for choosing between them — that overlap is left entirely unresolved.

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