Lua memory + GC object census (by type)

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, it discloses real behavior: requires getgc (else gcObjectCount=nil), gcinfo and Stats are optional/degraded gracefully, the walk is capped at maxScan (default 200000) setting truncated=true, and a runaway leak manifests as large gcObjectCount or byType.table. This is rich, non-obvious operational context.

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?

Front-loaded with what it measures and why, then constraints. The trailing metadata tail (Signature, Phase, Requires, Produces, Safety, On failure) is somewhat verbose and partly redundant with the annotations (idempotency=read-only, Safety: read-only), but most sentences earn their place.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully documents the return shape ({ luaMemoryKB, gcObjectCount, truncated, byType, engineMemory } or { error }), the guard conditions, and the cap behavior, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: it explains maxScan's default, the cap semantics, and the truncated flag consequence, plus that threadContext is optional. It enriches rather than merely restates the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource: reports the Lua VM heap via gcinfo() and takes a GC census by walking getgc(true) and counting objects by type. It clearly distinguishes itself from neighboring memory/render tools like measure-memory and get-render-stats by specifying exactly what is measured and returned.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use contexts (gauge client heaviness, spot runaway table/closure leaks, take baseline before/after exploits). It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools such as measure-memory or filter-gc, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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