get_memory_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. Naming PSS/RSS tells the agent what kind of data comes back, and 'get' implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about required permissions, whether the app must be installed/running, or failure modes. With an output schema present, return-value explanation is not needed, but the operational prerequisites are unaddressed.

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 with no filler; the parenthetical metric list is the only elaboration and it earns its place by clarifying output scope. Sized appropriately for a one-parameter read 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?

For a simple read-only tool with a fully documented parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose. It is still thin on prerequisites (app must exist / be running) and permission requirements, which an annotation-free tool would ideally disclose.

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 100% and the single parameter (package_name) is fully documented in the schema with a format example. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (获取/get) and resource (内存占用信息/memory usage info) scoped to an application, and even names the metric types (PSS, RSS). It does not need to distinguish from siblings since none of the other tools read memory, but it also offers no explicit differentiation.

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 use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. whether the app must be running), and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and description.

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