reports_bitmap_memory_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' weakly implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about required permissions, error behavior for malformed or unknown package names, rate limits, or what the returned metadata contains — all of which an agent would want for a metadata endpoint.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the purpose leads and the path format follows immediately. Every element is load-bearing for such a small tool.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient, and the path template covers the main ambiguity. But with no output schema, the description should have said what the metadata actually contains or how it is consumed downstream, and it should distinguish this from the sibling query tool.

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 0% and the single 'name' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description compensates well by giving the exact resource-path template 'apps/{packageName}/bitmapMemoryUsageMetricSet', telling the agent precisely how to construct the value rather than just that a string is expected.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get bitmap memory usage metric-set metadata'), which is clearly distinct from the data-fetching sibling reports_bitmap_memory_query. However, it never names that sibling or explicitly says 'metadata only, not the usage values', so an agent must infer the boundary from the word 'metadata' alone.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'metric-set metadata' suggests a discovery/lookup step preceding a query, and the format template hints at what to supply. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to reports_bitmap_memory_query as the follow-up for actual metric values.

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