status

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: read-only, no side effects, and returns a dict with specific fields. It also explains the scope parameter's effect. No contradictions.

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 concise and well-structured: summary, behavioral note, usage advice, parameter section, return section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 output schema, the description details the return dict schema. It covers parameter usage, behavior, and use cases. Fully informs an agent on how and when to invoke the tool.

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 100% and the schema describes the 'scope' parameter. The description adds value by explaining usage ('Returns global stats if omitted') and linking to use cases (before purge). This provides context beyond the schema's 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 returns memory store statistics with a specific verb ('Return'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get' or 'recall' by emphasizing aggregate stats rather than individual memories. The read-only and no-side-effects affirmations further clarify its non-destructive nature.

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 explicitly advises when to call the tool: 'at session start to check if relevant context exists, or before purge to confirm scope contents.' This provides clear guidance versus alternatives and implies not to use for specific memory retrieval.

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