get_sim_memory_usage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool 'gets' data, implying a safe read, but it does not disclose whether this triggers a cook, what the memory breakdown includes, or whether any state is modified. Minimal behavioral context is added beyond the tool name.

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?

Exceptionally concise: a one-sentence purpose plus a single parameter line. Every word earns its place and the key action is front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and only one minimally described parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the 'detailed memory breakdown' looks like, what units are used, whether a cook is triggered, or when this tool is the right one to call among many simulation-related siblings.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add a clarifying phrase that node_path is a 'DOP network node path', which gives meaning beyond the schema's bare string type. However, it lacks details about expected format, examples, or how the path relates to the simulation being queried.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed memory breakdown for the simulation'), clearly indicating what the tool does. It is more specific than generic sibling getters like get_simulation_info, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related DOP/simulation tools.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_simulation_info or get_dop_objects. The description simply states the function without any context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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