MemoryStats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Show' implies a read-only inspection, and the description names the reported dimensions (counts, age, decay health, tier). It does not disclose potential side effects, whether decay health calculations are triggered, or any access/cost implications, but for a read-style stats tool this is a reasonable baseline.

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?

A single, tight sentence that front-loads the action and then specifies the meaningful output categories. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and every word contributes to understanding.

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 statistics tool, the description is largely complete: it names the resource and the specific metrics reported. The presence of an output schema helps cover return details. Minor room for improvement would be stating whether this is a pure read operation or if it can trigger decay calculations.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty, matching the description. With no parameters to document, the description adds value by clarifying what each result category covers, which is all that is needed.

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?

States a specific verb ('Show'), a clear resource ('memory statistics'), and detailed specifics ('counts, age, and decay health per memory tier'). It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which perform actions like remembering, recalling, forgetting, or pruning rather than reporting statistics.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need memory statistics rather than performing a memory operation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusion conditions.

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