memory_usage

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

The annotations already communicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the tool reports RAM/swap usage with specific categories, but it does not disclose units, output formatting beyond the schema, or host-resolution behavior. No contradiction 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 short and front-loaded with the operational purpose, followed by a compact Args/Returns structure. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only tool, though the Args line is somewhat redundant with the schema.

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 low-complexity, read-only memory query, the description, schema, and annotations together cover the essential behaviors: resource, metric categories, host selection, and response format. The main missing piece is usage guidance relative to sibling tools, which is captured separately.

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 Args line only lists the parameter names host and response_format without explaining their meaning. The nested schema definitions provide the actual semantics such as local-host fallback and markdown/json values, so the description's contribution is minimal but not misleading.

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 explicitly names the resource (RAM and swap), the exact metric categories (total/used/free/available/cache), and states the return type (memory indicators). This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like cpu_usage, disk_usage, and system_info.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as system_info or process_list. The schema mentions remote-host prerequisites, but the description itself does not state when to select this tool or when to use another one.

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