get_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does disclose that the underlying command varies by platform, which is helpful. However, it does not mention whether the operation is safe/read-only, potential side effects, or the format of the returned data. The read-only nature is implied by the 'get' prefix but not explicitly stated.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides essential platform-specific command mappings. There is no filler or redundant 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be described. The description covers the core purpose and platform-specific behavior. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool and does not clarify the 'device' parameter. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is nearly complete but falls short in these small respects.

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 input schema has one parameter 'device' with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention this parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 function: 'Show memory utilization.' It also provides specific commands per platform (IOS/IOS-XE and NX-OS), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cpu or get_environment. The verb 'Show' and resource 'memory utilization' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description provides useful platform-specific command context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_cpu or get_environment. Usage is implied by the name and description rather than explicitly guided.

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