analyze_latency

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the analysis detects and the required configuration, which is valuable context. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what commands are run, or what the return value looks like, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a concise list of detected latency categories and the prerequisite. Every sentence adds meaningful information with no redundancy or filler.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a reasonably complete picture: it names the resource, lists specific detection targets, and states a key prerequisite. It stops short of describing the output format or how the threshold is used, but for a focused analysis tool this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively 100% (empty schema). The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds no param-specific semantics because none are needed. It correctly focuses on behavior rather than parameter details.

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 analyzes Redis latency events and enumerates specific latency sources (fork, AOF fsync, slow commands, eviction/expiry, defragmentation). This distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like analyze_memory and analyze_slowlog. The verb 'Analyze' plus the resource 'Redis latency events' is specific and unambiguous.

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 use when investigating latency issues and explicitly states the prerequisite that latency-monitor-threshold must be set. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the sibling set suggests differentiation by metric domain.

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