get_ram_usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns both RAM and swap metrics and includes a chart, which hints at visual formatting. It does not describe return structure or units, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It conveys the resource, the exact data points, and a visual feature in under 20 words, making it ideal for quick agent comprehension.

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, no-parameter, read-only tool, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. No output schema exists, but the description lists the output contents (metrics and chart), making it self-sufficient. There are no missing operational prerequisites or complex edge cases to 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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). There are no parameter details to add; the description's mention of the metrics returned is additional context beyond parameter semantics. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and no further param info is needed.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('RAM and swap memory usage'), including the exact metrics (total, used, available, percent) and a distinctive feature (inline stacked bar chart). It differentiates from sibling tools like get_cpu_usage and get_disk_usage by its resource focus.

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?

While no explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' is stated, the context is unambiguous: this tool is for RAM/swap information, and siblings cover other resources. For a simple read-only getter, the usage context is clear, though it stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions.

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