sys_qrybuf

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

The description explicitly states '(read-only)', which is a useful behavioral disclosure and aligns with a non-destructive query. However, since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency, and it fails to disclose what data is returned, whether any side effects exist (beyond read-only), or typical response structure. This is minimal coverage.

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 extremely concise—a single phrase 'Memory / buffer usage (read-only)'—with critical safety information placed early. It contains no waste, but its brevity borders on under-specification, as it omits any elaboration on the tool's purpose beyond the minimal label.

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 tool with no parameters, an output schema, and a simple read-only query, the description is still incomplete. It does not clarify what 'buffer usage' means, what exact metrics are returned, or how it relates to overlapping tools like sys_pollbuf or show_memory. An agent lacks enough context to interpret the tool's output or decide its usefulness.

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 nothing to document beyond the schema, which is complete (100% coverage with an empty object). Per the baseline for no parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate because the description adds no extra parameter context (there is none needed), and the schema covers everything.

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 resource ('Memory / buffer usage') and implies a query operation, and explicitly marks it as read-only. However, it does not differentiate itself from many sibling tools such as show_memory, show_cocpu, or sys_pollbuf, leaving an agent without a clear basis to select this tool over its alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus similar memory/buffer-related tools. There are no mentions of preferred context, exclusions, or alternatives, so an agent must rely on the name alone, which is insufficient for correct selection.

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