show_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state 'read-only', which is a useful behavioral signal indicating no side effects. However, it doesn't disclose what the output looks like, whether it reflects real-time or cached data, or any units/format details. The read-only claim is a positive but minimal disclosure.

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 a single, compact phrase that conveys the subject and the read-only nature. There is no wasted text, and the key information is front-loaded. For a parameterless status tool, this is appropriately sized.

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 parameterless read-only tool, the description is mostly complete. However, given the large sibling set of status/diagnostic tools, a bit more context about what 'memory usage' includes (e.g., total, used, free, buffer) or how it differs from sys_health or linux_status would help an agent select it confidently. The lack of an output schema also means the description could have mentioned the return format.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The schema is trivially complete (100% coverage with an empty properties object). The description correctly implies no arguments are needed, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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 'Memory usage (read-only)' clearly identifies the resource (memory usage) and the operation (view/read). It distinguishes itself from the many sibling tools by specifying memory as the subject, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative. The parenthetical 'read-only' reinforces the non-mutating nature.

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?

The description implies this is a diagnostic/status tool for checking memory usage, which is a common use case among the many show_* siblings. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like show_status, sys_health, or linux_status, nor does it state any prerequisites or context.

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