memory_optimization_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. It only states 'get', implying a read operation, but provides no details on whether it modifies state, requires admin rights, or has limitations.

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 short sentence (5 words), which is concise but too brief to convey necessary details. While not verbose, it sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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?

Despite having two parameters (one with nested object), no output schema, and over 30 sibling memory-related tools, the description provides no differentiation, parameter explanation, or expected output. It is severely incomplete for informed tool selection.

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 0% and the description does not mention the two parameters (includeRecommendations, timeRange). The boolean and nested object parameters are left undefined, forcing the agent to guess their meaning and valid values.

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 'Get comprehensive optimization metrics and recommendations' indicates it retrieves metrics and suggestions, but does not specify what aspect (e.g., memory usage, performance) or how comprehensive it is. Sibling tools like memory_insights and memory_learning_stats suggest similar functionality, causing 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_insights or memory_cleanup. The description lacks context on prerequisites, input conditions, or situations where this tool is preferred or avoided.

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