redis_latency_rca

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers extensively: it clearly states it's a read operation ('[READ]'), describes the exact data sources (SLOWLOG, INFO stall signals), how it flags patterns (O(N)/blocking commands), and what output to expect (every finding carries its numbers). It also discloses the telemetry vs. live-pull behavior, which is crucial for an agent to predict runtime effects.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then organized into a behavior paragraph, Args, and Returns. Each sentence contributes unique information—no fluff. While longer than simple tool descriptions, the complexity justifies the length, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description documents the return dict structure. It covers all three parameters, the analysis scope, and the two operational modes. For a diagnostic tool with moderate complexity, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without needing external documentation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: slow_us is explained with a default and example, telemetry is described with a detailed injected structure and side effect ('skips the live pull'), and target is clarified as a config reference with 'omit for default'. This adds rich meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 immediately states 'Diagnose redis latency → slowlog digest + stall causes + actions', clearly identifying the tool's purpose as a latency root-cause analysis. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like redis_slowlog (raw slowlog) and redis_server_info (general info) by positioning itself as 'The flagship latency RCA' and describing a comprehensive analysis pipeline.

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 explicitly explains the two usage modes: pass 'telemetry' for pure analysis or a target to pull live. It identifies this as the flagship latency RCA, implying it should be used for latency diagnosis. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for simpler cases, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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