memory_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get RAM and swap usage details', which is minimal. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any permissions needed, rate limits, or what happens under error conditions. The output schema may define return values, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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 short sentence, 'Get RAM and swap usage details.' It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words. Every word earns its 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?

Given the tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema likely defining the return structure, the description is mostly complete. However, it could be slightly more specific about what 'details' entails (e.g., used, free, percentages). The presence of sibling tools covering other metrics provides context for the overall system monitoring domain.

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 input schema is fully documented (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are none. According to guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4.

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 'Get RAM and swap usage details', specifying the verb (Get) and resource (RAM and swap). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cpu_metrics or disk_metrics, which cover different system resources.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description is self-explanatory for its intended use, but lacks explicit context about when not to use it or potential alternatives among sibling tools.

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