Display memory usage information to monitor system resources and identify potential performance issues.
Show memory usage
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "shell_free"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | Command arguments |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Show memory usage' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify what type of memory is shown (e.g., RAM, swap), the output format, any permissions required, or potential side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 with just three words, front-loading the core purpose without any wasted text. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns system memory data. It doesn't explain what the tool shows (e.g., free memory, used memory, swap), the format of the output, or any behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'args' parameter documented as 'Command arguments'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as examples of valid arguments or their effects. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.
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 'Show memory usage' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('memory usage'), making its purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'shell_df' (disk usage) or 'shell_ps' (process status), which might also relate to system resource monitoring, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'shell_df' for disk usage or 'shell_ps' for process memory, leaving the agent to infer usage context based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.