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 disclosing behavior. It states the operation is read-only and that an unreadable file is silently swallowed, which is useful behavioral context. It does not mention possible permission issues or error handling beyond that, but the core traits are disclosed.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every word adds value. It efficiently conveys source, content, behavioral notes, and use cases without fluff.

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 zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description provides adequate context: the source file, the data fields returned, read-only behavior, and recommended use cases. It is complete for a simple diagnostic 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 takes zero parameters, so the description has no need to explain parameter behavior. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description sufficiently covers what the tool does without needing to clarify inputs.

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 exactly what the tool does: returns System V shared memory segments from /proc/sysvipc/shm, and lists the specific data fields (key, size, attached processes, timestamps). It distinguishes itself from sibling diagnostic tools by its specific focus on shared memory segments.

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 identifies when to use this tool: 'Use for IPC and leak investigation.' This provides clear context for use, though it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, making it slightly less complete than a 5.

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