get_process_memory

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

The description labels the tool as 'Read', indicating a non-destructive, read-only operation. However, with no annotations to provide safety guarantees, the description lacks further behavioral context (e.g., permissions required, impact on system, rate limits). It is adequate but not enriched beyond the basic read indication.

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 that is front-loaded with the action ('Read') and immediately conveys the key resources. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it concise and effective for quick comprehension.

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 (2 parameters, output schema present), the description covers the essential functionality. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, it lacks contextual completeness regarding prerequisites (e.g., process existence, permissions) or strictness of inputs (e.g., pid validity), leaving minor gaps.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the existing parameter descriptions are clear. The description adds value by mentioning 'largest memory mappings' which hints at the mapping_limit parameter's purpose, but it does not significantly augment what the schema already provides (e.g., mapping_limit's description already states 'sorted by RSS'). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Read' and the specific resources: 'RSS, VMS, and the largest memory mappings for one process.' This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_memory_info' (likely broader) and 'sample_memory_trend' (temporal focus), providing a specific and actionable purpose.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies it is for reading detailed memory of a single process, but it does not compare with alternatives such as 'get_memory_info' or 'sample_memory_trend', leaving the agent to infer usage context without clear boundaries.

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