get_memory_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the return shape: values in gigabytes and as a percentage for both RAM and swap. That is useful, but it says nothing about platform constraints, whether data is a point-in-time snapshot, or whether elevated permissions are needed. For a zero-parameter read-only utility the risk is low, so a 3 is defensible rather than a failure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the resource and the output units with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a trivial no-argument tool.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-value information, and it does specify both metric types and both representations (gigabytes and percentage). It stops short of noting whether the snapshot is instantaneous or whether it covers physical vs. virtual memory, so it is near-complete but not exhaustive.

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 takes zero parameters, which establishes the baseline of 4 under the scoring rules. There is nothing further for the description to clarify about inputs.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Get RAM and swap usage") and specifies the measurement units, so the purpose is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from closely related siblings such as get_system_info, get_cpu_info, or get_disk_info, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 statement of when to call this versus the other system-info siblings, and no prerequisites or conditions are given. The description is purely a statement of function with no routing guidance.

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