getDashboardTopMemoryUsage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a use-case rationale and does not disclose how many devices constitute 'top', the ranking direction, or what the response looks like — meaningful gaps for a 'top-N' style tool.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the rationale trailing; nothing is redundant. It could be slightly sharper by folding the use case into the first clause but it wastes no words.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional, fully documented parameter, read-only), so most requirements are met. However, with no output schema, the description should say what 'top devices by memory usage' actually returns (device list with memory percentages? a count?) and how many, which it does not.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the siteId parameter already documents the OMADA_SITE_ID default and points to listSites. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get the top devices by memory usage for a site.' An agent can distinguish it from the sibling getDashboardTopCpuUsage by the 'memory' qualifier, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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 clause 'useful for identifying memory-constrained devices' implies a use case (troubleshooting devices near memory limits), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no pointer to the CPU or PoE dashboard siblings as alternatives.

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