query_memory_usage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers key behavioral context: RSS plus swap definition, the Android Vitals mapping, default P50/P90/P99 metrics, optional P75/P95 support, available dimensions, and daily-only granularity. It does not cover error/rate-limit behavior, but for a query tool the disclosed constraints are substantial and non-obvious.

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?

Three focused sentences deliver the tool's purpose, metric units, additional options, sibling distinction, and a critical constraint. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 schema already documents all 8 parameters, the description supplies the missing domain context: what the metric measures, why it matches Android Vitals, what additional aggregations/dimensions exist, the daily-only restriction, and the relevant sibling tool. This is complete for a query tool without an output schema.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the metric set, clarifying that P75/P95 are available via the metrics parameter, naming the processName and appState dimensions, and reinforcing the DAILY-only aggregation restriction.

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 names a specific verb ('Query'), a specific resource ('overall app memory usage percentiles'), and concrete metric names with units. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling query_bitmap_memory_usage by explaining what this tool covers and what the sibling covers.

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 states the daily-only aggregation constraint and gives a direct alternative: 'Use query_bitmap_memory_usage to see how much of it is bitmaps.' This gives the agent clear when-to-use and when-to-choose-a-sibling guidance.

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