query_bitmap_memory_usage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly notes the daily aggregation restriction, which is a significant behavioral trait. It also hints at metrics/dimensions support beyond the schema. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a query tool, read-only behavior is implicit; the daily-only disclosure is the key trait.

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 core metrics, and every sentence adds value: it lists metrics, additional options, a use-case hint, and the aggregation constraint. No fluff or redundancy.

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 is a focused query operation with 8 parameters but no output schema, the description provides necessary context: what it returns (percentiles), common use case (memory pressure) with a sibling tool, and a key limitation (daily only). It could mention default row limits or return structure, but the core information for selection and invocation is present.

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%, so parameters like dates are well-documented. The description adds value by naming available metrics (P75/P95) beyond the schema's generic 'Metrics to fetch' and highlighting special dimensions (processName, appState) that are also in the enum. This adds meaning beyond simple property names.

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 it queries bitmap memory usage percentiles and lists exact metrics (bitmapMemoryUsageP50/P90/P99 plus distinctUsers). It also clarifies additional supported metrics (P75/P95) and dimensions (processName, appState), distinguishing this query from sibling tools like query_lmk_rate.

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?

It explicitly says 'Pair with query_lmk_rate when investigating memory pressure', giving a clear when-to-use and a complementary tool. It also states 'Daily aggregation only', setting expectations about data granularity. It does not explicitly list when NOT to use it, but the provided guidance is strong.

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