memory_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates the data source (/proc/meminfo) and mentions human-readable output, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or error conditions, leaving some gaps for a system tool.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. 'Full /proc/meminfo breakdown with human-readable sizes' efficiently conveys the tool's scope and output style.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate: it explains what the tool returns (a memory info breakdown) and the output format (human-readable). It does not enumerate specific fields or mention that format can be text or JSON, but those are minor omissions for a simple read tool.

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 fully documents the only parameter 'format' with an enum and description, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so it does not go beyond the schema.

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 provides a full breakdown of /proc/meminfo with human-readable sizes, which is a specific resource and output style. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gpu_status or disk_usage by focusing exclusively on memory information.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for memory details, but does not mention when to avoid it, nor does it reference sibling tools or provide selection criteria.

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