analyze_slowlog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It uses read-oriented verbs ('Analyze', 'Detects', 'identifies', 'recommends') making it clear this is an analysis/read operation. However, it does not explicitly state 'read-only' or mention potential side effects (e.g., whether SLOWLOG is cleared), but the intent is reasonably 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each clause adds value (what it does, what it detects, what it recommends). 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?

The tool has one optional parameter and no output schema. The description explains the core functionality thoroughly and hints at the output (detected commands, hotspots, recommendations). It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and when to invoke it, though a brief note on output format or typical use cases would make it even more complete.

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?

There is only one parameter (count) with 100% schema description coverage. The schema already fully explains the parameter, and the tool description does not add additional meaning or context beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers parameters well.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Analyze Redis SLOWLOG to find slow commands.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing specifically on SLOWLOG and dangerous O(N) commands, while also mentioning detection and 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 ('to find slow commands') but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_latency or analyze_performance. It provides clear context but no exclusions or direct comparison to sibling tools.

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