monitor_ram

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe/non-mutating profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it samples/live-reports current usage and covers both RAM and swap. It does not describe exact return formatting, but that is a minor gap given the strong annotation 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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: first defines behavior, second gives the use case, third names the sibling not to use. The main behavior is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations, the description is fully complete: it states what is measured, when to use it, and which sibling handles the related but different capacity query. No output schema or nested params create additional burden.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details and instead clarifies that the tool takes no arguments and simply reports current usage.

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 ('monitor') and precise resource scope: current RAM and swap usage vs free. Explicitly distinguishes itself from get_system_ram by excluding total capacity, making it easy to separate from sibling tools.

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?

Provides an explicit trigger condition ('when the user asks how much memory is being used right now') and an explicit exclusion with the alternative tool named. No inference is required.

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