Get Memory Pressure

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful diagnostic context beyond annotations by explaining what PLE is and giving interpretation thresholds, which helps an agent understand the tool's significance. It does not describe return format, but that is a minor gap for this simple read-only metric.

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?

Two tightly written sentences. The metric and its source are front-loaded, and the interpretation thresholds follow immediately with no wasted words.

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?

For a no-parameter diagnostic tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the metric and thresholds but does not state what the response contains (e.g., a scalar PLE value), which is a minor omission given the simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies. The schema has 100% coverage for an empty parameter set, and the description does not need to document any inputs.

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 resource and metric: Page Life Expectancy from the Buffer Manager, framed as memory pressure diagnostics. It is specific enough to distinguish from generic server checks, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with similar siblings like mssql_buffer_hit_ratio.

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?

Thresholds ('below 300 signals memory pressure', 'below 1000 on modern servers is worth a look') imply when the result matters, but the description never states when to call this tool versus alternatives such as mssql_buffer_hit_ratio or mssql_wait_stats. Usage guidance is only implicit.

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