get_memory_usage

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Does not modify system state,' which is a valuable safety guarantee. It does not discuss error conditions or prerequisites, but for a simple read-only tool this is adequate.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence conveys the core purpose, the second gives usage context and a behavioral note. Each sentence earns its place and the key function 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, output schema present), the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns, when to use it, and its non-destructive nature. The output schema presumably handles return-value details, so nothing critical 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, so there is nothing to document. Per the baseline rule for no parameters, this scores 4, and the description correctly omits any parameter details.

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 clear resource ('system memory and swap utilization') with output format ('percentages and GB'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_cpu_usage and get_disk_usage by its specific focus on memory and swap.

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 tells the agent when to use it: 'Use this when investigating high memory usage, swapping, or general system slowdown.' This gives clear context but does not mention alternatives or when-not to use, so it misses the full 5-level guidance on exclusions.

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