get_memory_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states 'Get memory usage' which implies a read-only operation, but does not elaborate on data source, side effects, or authentication needs. Though the tool is simple, a 3 is given because there is no behavioral detail beyond the obvious.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the purpose and key return fields. No unnecessary words or repetition. Efficient and 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 tool's simplicity (zero parameters, readonly), the description covers the essential: what it returns and the unit. Since an output schema exists, detailed return info can be there. It is complete enough, though could mention if the values are snapshot or aggregate.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds value by listing the output fields (total, used, free, etc.) and unit (KB), which is not in the schema.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'memory usage', and lists the specific fields (total, used, free, available, buffers, cached) and unit (KB). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_cpu_usage or get_storage_usage.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, the purpose is straightforward for a simple info retrieval tool with zero parameters, and siblings are similarly named, so context is implied. A 3 is appropriate for lacking explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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