get_sim_memory_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format might be (since there is no output schema), or any prerequisites or side effects. It only mentions that it returns a 'detailed memory breakdown', which is minimal.

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 very concise: a single clear sentence followed by a brief argument specification. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no wasted words.

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?

Considering the tool has one simple parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on what the memory breakdown includes (e.g., types of memory, format), when to use it, and any behavioral notes. For a tool in a complex environment like Houdini, this leaves gaps.

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 schema has one parameter (node_path) with 0% description coverage. The description includes 'Args: node_path: DOP network node path.' which adds a small amount of meaning by specifying it is a DOP network node path, but does not describe the expected format (e.g., a string path like /obj/dopnet1) or constraints. Given the low schema coverage, more parameter detail would be expected.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed memory breakdown for the simulation.' This clearly identifies the tool as a memory profiling/retrieval tool, distinct from sibling tools like get_simulation_info or get_cache_status, which query different aspects of the simulation. The only minor ambiguity is what 'breakdown' entails, but the core purpose is clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the context of memory usage is somewhat clear, the description never says when an agent should call it, nor does it offer any conditions or alternatives (e.g., use when debugging memory issues, or in contrast to get_cache_status).

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