get_memory_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool returns a breakdown but does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. For a simple read-only tool, the lack of detail limits transparency, hence score 2.

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 of 12 words, clearly stating what the tool does. It lists relevant categories, providing essential information without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no output schema, so the description should explain the returned data format. It only mentions 'breakdown by category' but does not describe whether the output is a list, dictionary, or numeric values. Given the tool's specificity (memory categories), the agent may need more detail to interpret results correctly. This gap reduces completeness.

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, and the schema coverage is effectively 100%. With no parameters to describe, the description's role is minimal. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description adequately identifies the tool's output without needing parameter details.

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 retrieves a detailed memory usage breakdown by category, listing specific categories (static, video, textures, buffers, objects). This provides a precise verb+resource combination and distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_memory_leaks or get_object_count which have different focuses.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, its purpose is self-evident for memory diagnostics, and sibling tools imply different use cases (e.g., leaks, counts). A score of 3 reflects the lack of explicit when/when-not guidance, but the context is not misleading.

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