Get Memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the returned content ('health' per DIMM), not behavior such as latency, error handling for unreachable iLO, or scope limits.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the resource and then the return contents; no filler. It is a sentence fragment rather than a complete clause, which keeps it slightly below fully polished.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't restate return structure, and annotations cover safety; the single required parameter is documented in-schema. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether the call fails for an offline or unknown server.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Server name from list_servers (or its iLO host/IP)'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the server argument, consistent with the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the resource (memory) and enumerates exactly what is returned: total GiB, populated/empty slot counts, and per-DIMM fields. This clearly separates it from siblings such as get_processors, get_storage, and get_network_adapters, though the verb is only implied by the label 'Memory:'.

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 when-to-use statement or named alternative; usage is only implied by the detail fields listed (useful for capacity or DIMM-health questions). An agent can infer the context but receives no exclusions or routing advice.

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