get_memory_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'obtener' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify what information is returned (e.g., total/used/free memory, swap usage percentages), whether it requires special permissions, or if there are any rate limits. For a system information tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in 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 perfectly concise - a single Spanish phrase that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains no unnecessary elaboration or redundant information.

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 tool's system-level nature and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what specific memory information is returned (e.g., metrics, units, format), whether the tool requires elevated permissions, or how the information might be useful in context. For a system information tool with no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the return values.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the description focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Obtener información de memoria RAM y swap' (Get RAM and swap memory information). It specifies the verb ('obtener' - get) and the resource ('información de memoria RAM y swap'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like get_cpu_info or get_system_info, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling system information tools (get_cpu_info, get_disk_info, get_system_info), but the description doesn't indicate when this specific memory-focused tool is appropriate versus the more general get_system_info or other specialized tools.

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