detect_memory_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'detect', which implies a read-only operation, but does not confirm whether the tool modifies state, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. The agent is left guessing about safe usage.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. It avoids unnecessary words. However, it may be too brief, missing important context that could be added without sacrificing conciseness.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return format, what constitutes a 'memory issue', or how the analysis works. The agent lacks complete understanding of the tool's output and behavior.

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 100% coverage with each parameter described in the schema itself. The tool description adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Per the rules, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high and description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('detect') and resource ('high memory usage and growth patterns'), which clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'analyze_exceptions' or 'analyze_route_performance' by focusing on memory patterns. However, it could be more specific about the context (e.g., HTTP requests).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or use cases. The implied context is memory analysis, but without explicit differentiation from sibling tools like 'analyze_slow_queries' or 'compare_requests', the agent lacks decision support.

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