cacheout_get_compressor_health

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by detailing the dual-sample measurement (~1 second apart), thrashing detection criteria, trend behavior requiring multiple invocations, and mode differences (standalone vs app). This adds significant behavioral context that annotations alone do not cover.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and provides detailed, relevant information in a structured order. While thorough, some sentences could be merged to reduce length slightly without losing clarity.

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?

With an output schema present, the description adequately covers behavior, return envelope, and mode handling. It lacks error conditions or prerequisites, but for a health-read tool this is acceptable. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct 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?

The input schema has no meaningful parameters (only an empty params object), so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters and focuses on the tool's operation instead, which is appropriate given the schema's emptiness.

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 retrieves 'macOS memory compressor health metrics' with specific outputs like ratio, rates, thrashing detection, pressure level, and trend. It differentiates well from sibling tools like cacheout_get_memory_stats and cacheout_system_health by focusing exclusively on compressor health.

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 explains how the tool works (dual-sampling, thrashing thresholds) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. No direct comparison with siblings or exclusion conditions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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