quest_app_memory

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It clearly describes the output content (PSS components in KB) and adds insight about graphics allocations, but does not disclose whether this is a one-time sample, if the app must be running, or any prerequisites.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get an app's memory anatomy') and packs additional useful context without waste.

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?

The description covers the tool's core purpose and output content well, and the lack of output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, missing parameter explanation and no mention of invocation context are minor gaps for such a simple tool.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain either parameter. The agent must infer that package_name is the app's package and device_id selects the device; the description adds no parameter value beyond the schema field names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('an app's memory anatomy') and specifies exact metrics (PSS in KB) and components (java heap, native heap, code, stack, graphics). It distinguishes itself from broader sibling tools like quest_performance or quest_app_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?

The description implies usage for diagnosing memory exhaustion, especially graphics-related issues in VR apps ('graphics allocations... are usually what exhausts memory in VR apps'), but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions.

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