Monitor Memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '查看' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state whether authentication is required, what host/profile constraints apply, or any other behavioral context.

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 short sentence with no wasted words and is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than providing structural detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The schema also documents the four connection parameters fully, but the description still omits any context about authentication, session profile use, or the monitoring scope, leaving it minimally complete.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (host, port, scheme, profile) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which matches the baseline of 3 when structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb and resource: '查看内存使用率' (view memory usage rate). It distinguishes itself from siblings like monitor_cpu and monitor_disk by resource, but does not explicitly clarify scope or sibling alternatives, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as monitor_metrics or system_info. Usage is only implied by the resource name, with no context, prerequisites, or exclusions provided.

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