get_sim_memory_usage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context by disclosing the internal API call `DopSimulation.memoryUsage()`, stating that the return value is explicitly marked in bytes, and noting the response passes through `apply_response_cap`. This goes beyond the bare purpose, though it doesn't cover error cases or detailed return structure.

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 remarkably concise, with two sentences that effectively cover the purpose and key behavioral details. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple read tool, the description covers the return type and response cap, but it lacks parameter semantics and usage context. The absence of an output schema and annotations makes the description the only source of information, yet it leaves gaps in understanding what the required inputs represent.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the tool description does not compensate. It never explains what `ctx` and `dop_path` mean, so the agent is left guessing. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds zero value.

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 '读取 DOP simulation 内存' (read DOP simulation memory), specifying a verb and resource. It identifies the tool as part of add-dops-tools and READ_ONLY, but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like get_simulation_info, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is purely functional and does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or related tools, leaving the agent without context for choosing it.

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