Memoria RAM

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=truehot and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is established. The description adds value by listing exactly which memory statistics and pressure levels (normal/warning/critical) the agent can expect, giving concrete behavioral expectations beyond the annotations.

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 line that front-loads the resource name and then lists only relevant metric categories. There is no filler, repetition, or extraneous context; every item in the list conveys useful 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers the key information an agent needs: what resource is queried and what kind of data is returned. Minor omissions like units or formatting are acceptable given the absence of an output schema and the simple, observational nature of the 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description supplements the empty schema by clarifying what the tool measures)Skip returns, which is the relevant semantic content for a no-argument tool.

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 identifies the exact resource (RAM) and enumerates the specific metrics returned (total, used, app memory, wired, compressed, cache, swap) plus memory pressure states. This makes it clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_cpu, get_disk, and get_battery.

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 implies usage: consult this tool when memory-related metrics are needed. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. The resource name alone conveys most of the intent, but no exclusions or routing cues are given.

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