redis_memory_pressure_rca

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly marks the operation as a read ('[READ]'), explains that it interprets memory metrics (e.g., noeviction means writes OOM, fragmentation ratio high = defrag), mentions the SCAN-budgeted big-key sample (implying potential cost), and states that every finding includes evidence. It stops short of discussing rate limits or performance implications of a live pull, but overall it is highly transparent.

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: a one-line summary, a paragraph with key details, then 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. Every sentence contributes meaningful information—thresholds, interpretation hints, and return fields. No unnecessary fluff or repetition of the schema.

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 the tool's complexity (RCA with multiple metrics and findings), the description fully covers input modes, parameters, and the return dict structure. Since there is no output schema, the explicit enumeration of return fields (pressure, usedPctOfMax, findings, etc.) makes the tool self-sufficient for an agent.

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 input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% schema coverage), so the description fully compensates. It explains used_pct as the 'used/maxmemory %' threshold, telemetry as an injected object that skips the live pull, and target as the redis target name from config. Each parameter's purpose and default behavior are clearly documented.

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 opens with '[READ] Diagnose redis memory pressure → cause + action, with numbers,' which is a specific verb (diagnose) + resource (redis memory pressure) + outcome (cause and action with numbers). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like redis_memory_stats (raw stats) and redis_latency_rca (latency) by framing this as the flagship memory RCA.

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 provides clear context: it's for diagnosing redis memory pressure with actionable findings. It explicitly explains the two invocation modes ('Pass telemetry for pure analysis, or a target to pull live'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. Since it identifies itself as 'the flagship memory RCA,' the usage context is unambiguous.

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