Memory stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the temporal tiers (short/medium/long) and the breakdown dimensions, which helps the agent understand the scope and limitations of the data returned.

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 with two sentences plus a parenthetical clarification. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently explains tiers and parameter usage without extraneous text.

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?

The tool has one optional parameter, no output schema, and the description explains the return value (counts, breakdowns) and parameter semantics. While the exact output structure isn't specified, it is adequate for the agent to use the tool effectively.

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 0% description coverage for the only parameter 'namespace'. The description compensates by stating 'Pass namespace to scope the counts to one project/agent scope,' adding semantic meaning beyond the schema alone.

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 'Memory stats: total count, breakdown by kind, namespace, and the temporal-tier distribution.' It specifies the verb (stats) and resource (memory), and distinguishes from sibling tools like inspect_memory or forget by focusing on aggregate counts.

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 context on when to use: for memory statistics, with an optional namespace to scope counts. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough for the agent to decide.

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