detect_memory_issues

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. 'Detect' implies read-only analysis, but the description does not disclose what the tool does with detected issues, whether it mutates anything, what qualifies as high memory usage, or what kind of output the agent should expect.

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 a single, tight sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It front-loads the core purpose and earns its place, even though brevity comes at the cost of behavioral detail.

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?

This is a non-trivial tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides only a one-line purpose. An agent would not know what result to expect, how thresholdMB and detectGrowth interact, or how the tool relates to other diagnostic tools; this is incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each of the 11 parameters already has a meaningful description in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level context, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Detect high memory usage and growth patterns' names a specific activity and resource, and clearly relates to memory diagnostics rather than the sibling tools that focus on slow queries, N+1 problems, or exceptions. However, it does not explicitly state that this operates on Clockwork HTTP request data, leaving a small ambiguity about the exact input scope.

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 wording implies the tool should be used when investigating memory usage or growth patterns, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also does not mention any alternative tools, which is a notable gap given the large sibling list.

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