memory_perf_report

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

The description discloses that it dumps telemetry counters and embedding cache stats, adding context beyond the annotations which already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. It does not mention any side effects or limitations, but given the annotations cover safety, the description provides useful behavioral context about what data is returned. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the action ('dump') and immediately lists the specific counters, followed by a clear usage note. The version prefix 'v11.0' is minor and does not detract. Every word contributes 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?

For a report tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what data it dumps, the purpose, and the intended use case. It does not describe the exact output format, but that is not strictly necessary for an agent to decide to call it. The annotations cover safety, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). The description does not need to explain parameters. Per the calibration baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. No parameter information is missing.

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 action: 'dump in-process telemetry counters' and enumerates specific counter names, distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_stats or memory_graph_stats that likely serve different metrics. The mention of 'persistent embedding_cache stats' adds specificity. The purpose is unambiguous and identifiable.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use to verify the fast hot path stays clean.' This gives a clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the stated purpose is sufficient for an agent to decide if this tool is appropriate compared to other reporting tools. Since there are no parameters, no further usage details are needed.

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