mcp_engram_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists the output fields (total memories, pinned count, etc.), which gives some transparency, but it does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. For a health report, read-only is likely, but not stated.

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 a single, well-structured sentence of 14 words listing all output components. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's return by listing the five components. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., JSON keys or types), which would improve completeness. Still, it is sufficient for an agent to understand what data to expect.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). With no parameters, the description needs no additional meaning. The baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description does not need to compensate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and a clear resource 'health report of the geometric manifold'. It enumerates the exact metrics (total memories, pinned count, CRS distribution, active namespace, disk usage), distinguishing this tool from all siblings which perform other engram operations.

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 states what the tool returns but does not explicitly advise when to use it over alternatives. While the unique purpose (health report) makes usage implicit, no when-not or sibling comparisons are provided, limiting guidance for an agent unfamiliar with the toolset.

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