memory_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output includes 'count, importance/area distribution, size' but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what permissions are required beyond 'Admin', whether any side effects occur, or if rate limits apply. The safety profile is only implied by the nature of 'stats'.

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—one short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key information ('Admin: collection stats') and then lists the statistics provided. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness (e.g., specifying the parameter). It earns its place but is at the edge of under-specification.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the high-level output but omits the return format (e.g., object keys, data types) and any explanation of valid values for 'project'. With no output schema, the agent might need to guess the structure. The description is minimally complete for a stats retrieval but lacks enough detail for reliable invocation without domain knowledge.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter 'project'. The description does not explain what 'project' represents (e.g., project name, ID, or path) or how to use it. The phrase 'collection stats' loosely ties to the parameter, but the agent is left guessing whether 'project' refers to a project identifier or a collection name. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's bare type.

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: it provides admin-level collection statistics including count, importance/area distribution, and size. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_list_projects (which lists projects) and memory_search (which searches within a collection). The verb 'stats' implies retrieval, and the resource is 'collection stats', making the intent unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The prefix 'Admin:' hints at restricted access, but there is no explicit statement of prerequisites, user roles, or scenarios where other tools (e.g., memory_list_projects, memory_get) would be more appropriate. The agent receives no help in deciding between memory_stats and its siblings.

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