analyze_memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the specific evidence types (peak, retained-end, allocation) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as return format or edge cases. It provides some value beyond annotations but is not richly transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action, resource, and evidence types. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is a model of 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 the presence of an output schema, full parameter descriptions, and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficiently complete for a read-only analysis tool. It does not need to explain return values, and the stated scope ('peak, retained-end, allocation evidence') gives adequate context. A minor gap is lack of explicit guidance on what constitutes a 'memory-profile run or artifact', but this is covered by discovery via list_runs/list_artifacts.

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 each parameter clearly described: limit (1-1000 max observations) and run_or_artifact (with discovery hint). The tool description adds no further meaning to parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; schema carries 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 uses a specific verb ('Analyze') and names the resource ('memory-profile runs or artifacts') with clear focus areas ('peak, retained-end, allocation evidence'). This distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like analyze_hotspots or analyze_execution, which target different evidence types.

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 when to use the tool (when you need memory evidence from runs/artifacts) and the parameter hint to discover IDs via list_runs/list_artifacts provides some context. However, there is no explicit comparison to alternatives or stated exclusions, so it falls short of clear usage guidance.

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