get_memory_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the set of memory metrics returned, which is useful, but says nothing about units (bytes/percent), swap semantics, or whether swap is null when absent.

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?

A single front-loaded line with zero waste, listing the key returned fields inline. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 and only annotations for safety, the description carries the return-value burden and does so at a high level by naming the four metrics. Units and swap edge cases are the only meaningful gaps.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No misleading parameter references are present.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get RAM usage') and enumerates the metrics returned (used, total, available, swap). It is clear enough to distinguish from get_cpu_info or get_disk_info, though it never explicitly contrasts with get_system_info, which could plausibly report memory too.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no mention of how it relates to sibling get_system_info. Usage is only implied by the resource name 'RAM usage', which is generally enough for an agent to infer this is the memory-specific query.

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