Get Memory Stats

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool requires an open project and explains the memory subsystem's nature (holographic/fractal memory). This provides context beyond annotations.

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—two sentences that front-load the purpose and key usage details. No unnecessary words, every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

With no output schema, the description could be more explicit about return format, but it mentions the types of metrics (ingested, index size). Given the low complexity (0 required params, 2 optional) and good annotations, it is mostly complete. A minor gap is not specifying whether the output is summary or per-component based on includeDetails.

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 schema already documents the two parameters. The description reiterates the scoping and breakdown options but does not add significant new semantics beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate given schema richness.

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 it returns statistics about the project's memory subsystem, specifying what metrics are included (ingested amount, index size). It positions itself as 'the single source for memory metrics,' differentiating it from siblings like get_statistics which likely cover broader stats.

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 gives guidance on optional scoping to a document or including a detailed breakdown, and mentions a prerequisite ('Requires an open project'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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