resource_pressure_analysis

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

The description discloses the read-only nature with '[READ]' and details the process: one-shot sample, flagging thresholds, and attaching recommendations. With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and meets it well, though it could mention whether it modifies state (it doesn't).

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 well-structured with a summary line, a detailed behavior paragraph, and a clear Args list. It is concise but not overly terse, though the second paragraph could be slightly tighter.

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 only vaguely mentions 'Every row carries its numbers' and recommendations. It lacks explicit output fields or format, which is a gap for a tool that produces ranked, structured results.

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 0%, but the description's Args section explains all four parameters (cpu_threshold, mem_threshold, samples, target) with defaults and usage, adding significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 ranks containers by CPU and memory pressure against thresholds and provides recommendations. It specifies the verb (rank, recommend) and resource (containers), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like container_stats by focusing on pressure analysis with recommendations.

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 usage for one-shot pressure analysis but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., container_stats for live stats, container_logs for history). It provides no when-not-to-use guidance, so the agent must infer usage context.

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