get_memory_by_host

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the data sources ('Uses sys schema or performance_schema'), reveals a system dependency ('Requires performance_schema memory instrumentation enabled'), and clarifies the breakdown dimensions (host, user, event type). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 perfectly structured and concise: four brief sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, the next three bullet points clarify what data it shows, and the final sentence provides a critical prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct value.

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 tool's moderate complexity (memory analysis with system dependencies), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and 100% schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's purpose, data sources, breakdown dimensions, and prerequisites. The main gap is the lack of an output schema, but the description compensates somewhat by detailing what data will be returned. For a read-only analysis tool, this is sufficient though not exhaustive.

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%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema (group_by with enum values and default, limit with description and default). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without parameter info in the description.

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's purpose: 'Get memory usage breakdown by host or user' with specific details about what data it shows (memory allocated per host, per user, by event/operation type). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'calculate_memory_usage' and 'get_table_memory_usage' by focusing on host/user-level breakdowns rather than overall calculations or table-specific usage. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all memory-related siblings.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need memory breakdowns by host, user, or event type. It explicitly states the prerequisite 'Requires performance_schema memory instrumentation enabled,' which is valuable usage guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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