get_memory_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and covers key behavioral aspects: it discloses read-only access from /proc/meminfo and the single fatal error condition. It could also mention potential non-fatal issues or output formatting, but for a simple read-only tool, this is sufficient and transparent.

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 three tight sentences: first states the primary purpose, second covers safety/source, third provides usage guidance. No filler or redundant information, and the most important information appears first.

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, output schema present), the description covers all essential context: what it returns, where it reads from, and when to use it. The existence of an output schema means return format doesn't need to be detailed here, so the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 does not need to explain parameter syntax, but it adds context by indicating the output fields (total, used, free), which helps the agent understand expected data without reference to the parameter 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 returns RAM and swap usage with total, used, and free values, specifying a concrete verb and resource. It also differentiates from sibling tools by referencing get_system_health_check for threshold checks, making the tool's specific purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use for memory pressure checks; get_system_health_check for thresholds.' This not only indicates when to use this tool but also names an alternative for a related but distinct need, fulfilling the when/when-not distinction.

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