get_shared_memory_segments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the operation is read-only and discloses the important silent-failure behavior ('an unreadable file is silently swallowed'), which an agent must know to interpret empty results. This is valuable and not redundant with 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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core behavior and data fields; the second adds safety behavior and the intended use case. Every clause earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 diagnostics tool with an output schema present, the description is fully complete: it identifies the source, the data fields, the silent-failure edge case, and the use context. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret the result is missing.

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 input schema is an empty object, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is a 4; the description fully compensates by specifying the datasource and returned fields.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('System V shared memory segments from /proc/sysvipc/shm'), then enumerates the actual data fields. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from general memory or diagnostics siblings such as get_memory_info or get_proc_diagnostics.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use for IPC and leak investigation', giving the agent clear context for when to select this tool. It does not name sibling alternatives or state excluding conditions, but the application context is sufficient for a diagnostic tool of this type.

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