memory_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation through the verb 'Show', but does not explicitly state 'does not modify memory' or describe any side effects. It also does not mention output format or potential costs, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the primary action ('Show memory statistics') and succinctly lists the key details. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states exactly what statistics are shown. However, it does not describe the output structure (e.g., JSON format), which could be useful but is not critical for a simple stats 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?

The tool accepts zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because there are none; it appropriately focuses on the output content.

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 uses a specific verb 'Show' with a clear resource 'memory statistics' and enumerates exactly what the stats include (counts by type, active/archived/superseded, last consolidation). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_save or memory_delete.

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 implies when to use the tool (when memory statistics are needed), but does not explicitly state usage context or exclude alternatives. Sibling tools like memory_consolidate might relate, but the description offers no explicit comparison or when-not-to-use guidance.

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