mcp_engram_stats

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It describes the output as a text block and mentions key components (total memories, pinned count, CRS distributions, etc.). However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects, which is important for an agent to know. It also doesn't mention potential performance costs.

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 extremely concise with only three sentences, yet it covers behavior, usage context, and output format. It uses clear prefixes (BEHAVIOR, USAGE, OUTPUT) to structure information, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential information: what it does, when to use it, and what the output contains. It could be more complete by explicitly noting it is safe to call at any time (no destructive actions), but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role among 30+ siblings.

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 coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters further. Baseline score for no parameters is 4, and the description meets this standard.

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 calculates and returns a comprehensive health report of the geometric manifold. The verb 'Calculates and returns' combined with 'health report' provides a specific and unique purpose among the many sibling tools (e.g., mcp_engram_query_with_momentum, mcp_engram_forget). No ambiguity.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Call this to understand the current scale, disk usage, active namespace, and thermodynamic health' and 'Useful before triggering autophagy.' It implies when to use but does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with alternatives like mcp_engram_scout or mcp_engram_summarize.

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