get_app_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the core function without mentioning output format, required permissions, read-only status, or potential side effects. For a dump tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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?

One sentence, 11 words, front-loaded with the action and target. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 there is no output schema, the description should explain what the returned 'meminfo' looks like or at least note that output is raw. It also lacks behavioral context (e.g., requires root? read-only?). For a relatively simple tool, it is still incomplete for an agent that needs to know what to expect.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it reiterates 'app package name' but provides no extra context for serial or special formatting. Schema descriptions already define both parameters adequately.

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 a specific action—'Dump detailed RAM memory statistics (meminfo)'—targeting a specific resource: 'an app package name.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cpu_usage (CPU) and get_dumpsys (system-wide dumpsys) by scope and resource.

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 implies use for obtaining per-app meminfo, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives like get_dumpsys or note prerequisites (e.g., rooted device). Context is clear enough to infer the intended use, but exclusions are missing.

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