get_table_memory_usage

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, indicating a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies what data is shown (e.g., cache usage, hit rates, InnoDB buffer pool by table) and notes exclusions (e.g., MySQL system tables are excluded from buffer pool breakdown). This enhances understanding of the tool's behavior without contradicting annotations.

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 well-structured with bullet points for clarity and a concluding sentence on purpose. It's appropriately sized, with each sentence adding value (e.g., listing what's shown and exclusions). However, the first sentence could be more front-loaded with key details, and some redundancy exists (e.g., 'Analyze memory usage' and 'Helps optimize' overlap slightly).

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 complexity (analyzing memory usage with multiple aspects), annotations cover safety and idempotency, and schema fully describes parameters. The description adds context on data scope and exclusions, which is helpful. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on return format or limitations, but it's largely complete for a read-only analysis 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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (include_buffer_pool and top_n_tables). The description doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema, as it only mentions buffer pool breakdown by table in the context of exclusions, which is already implied by the parameter name. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 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 clearly states the tool analyzes memory usage for user tables and caches, specifying the verb 'analyze' and resource 'memory usage for user tables and caches'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'calculate_memory_usage' or 'get_memory_by_host', which appear related but have unspecified distinctions.

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 implies usage by stating 'Helps optimize table caching parameters', suggesting it's for performance tuning. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calculate_memory_usage' or 'analyze_buffer_pool', nor does it specify exclusions or prerequisites.

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