get_largest_keys

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

No annotations provided, but description includes coverage limitation (snapshots track by element count, so memory-heavy keys with few elements may not be tracked) and requirement (BetterDB Pro). Discloses key behavioral trait beyond basic operation.

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?

Five sentences tightly packed with essential information: purpose, coverage nuance, companion tool, use cases, and requirement. Front-loaded with the primary action. No redundant text.

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?

With 4 optional params, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, usage, limitation, and prerequisites. It lacks pagination or response format info but is sufficient for an AI to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. Description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, but baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already documents parameters clearly.

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 specific verb 'Get' and resource 'largest keys from key analytics snapshots ranked by measured memory usage'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling 'get_hot_keys' by mentioning ranking basis (memory vs access frequency).

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?

Explicitly describes when to use: 'find memory hogs, bloated hashes/sets, or candidates for TTL/eviction'. Names companion tool for frequency-based ranking. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but adequate.

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