stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It communicates that this is a read-only summary operation ('Query', 'returns a summary') and lists the information it provides, but it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, output format, or implications of the optional session_key filter beyond the schema.

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, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, and each sentence adds value: one defines the output contents and the other frames the use case. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides enough information to understand purpose, usage, and returned summary contents. It could be more complete by elaborating on the summary format or explicitly noting that an argument can scope the results, but it is not materially incomplete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the phrase 'No arguments needed,' which matches the optional parameter design but may slightly understate the session_key filtering capability. It does not meaningfully enrich the schema's own parameter description.

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: 'Query memory statistics' and enumerates specific outputs including total captures, breakdown by type, top tags, session count, date range, and database size. This is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like health or recall, which suggest broader or different functionality.

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 provides clear context: 'Use this to understand memory health and coverage' and notes that 'No arguments needed — returns a summary.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the use case is well framed for an optional-parameter statistics tool.

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