get_memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real content value by disclosing which memory subsystems are sampled, but says nothing about whether this is a point-in-time snapshot, how many processes appear in the 'most private memory' list, or how large the returned payload is.

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?

A single dense sentence-fragment with the resource label front-loaded followed by the payload contents; no filler or marketing language. It reads slightly as a bare field dump rather than prose, which is acceptable here but keeps it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing return content, and the enumeration helps considerably. However, it does not indicate the shape of the response (nested sections, counters, list sizes) or whether values are bytes, so an agent still cannot predict the structure it will parse.

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 there is nothing beyond the schema to explain; the empty schema itself fully constrains invocation. Baseline 4 applies since no parameter documentation burden exists.

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 names the resource (memory) and enumerates the exact data categories reported: commit charge and limit, file cache, pools, standby/modified/free lists, page files, and top private-memory processes. That enumeration cleanly separates it from siblings like get_cpu, get_disks, and get_system_overview. It lacks an explicit verb, but the intent is 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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus get_system_overview (which presumably also includes memory) or get_process for per-process memory. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative named. The agent must infer routing from the field list alone.

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