Get memory usage

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower; the description adds genuinely new context by disclosing a side effect the annotations do not surface — that each call records a snapshot into runtime history. It does not explain retention or snapshot cost, but this is meaningful added behavior.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded ahead of the less-obvious snapshot side effect. Every clause carries information.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description must stand in for the return value, and it does so by listing the metric components and their unit. The snapshot-to-history behavior is stated but its semantics (how much history, whether it affects later queries) are left open.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion, and the schema (100% coverage) is trivially complete.

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?

Names the precise resource (Dart heap usage for the main isolate) and enumerates the sub-metrics returned (heap in use, capacity, external/native memory) with units. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_logs or runtime_status without opening a schema.

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 call this versus alternatives such as runtime_status, runtime_health, or diagnose_performance. The description explains what comes back but leaves the selection decision entirely to inference.

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