Memory Info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly says 'GET', implying a safe read-only operation, but it does not mention potential edge cases (e.g., GPU not available), units of measurement, or whether any setup is required. This is adequate for a simple query tool but not rich.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the exact purpose and endpoint. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundant content.

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's simplicity (no parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It communicates the resource and operation, though it does not describe the response format (e.g., memory used/total), which could be helpful. Still, the low complexity makes this sufficient.

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, so the input schema is trivially complete. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Per the baseline for 0 params, this scores a 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 the action ('Get') and the resource ('CPU/GPU memory usage'), making it immediately obvious what the tool does. It also includes the endpoint (GET /sdapi/v1/memory), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like sdnext_gpu or sdnext_status.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as sdnext_gpu and sdnext_gpu_smi might serve overlapping purposes, but the description does not mention them or offer any comparative context.

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