vm_memory_metrics

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. It implies a read-style reporting action and adds one scope exclusion, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, whether counters are cumulative or instantaneous, or what the return looks like.

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 two short sentences and front-loads the action. There is little waste, though the second sentence is a narrow exclusion rather than a high-value disambiguation.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the reported counters contain and how they are returned. Instead it only lists vague counter categories and one exclusion, leaving an agent without enough detail to interpret the output or distinguish this tool from adjacent vm_ monitoring tools.

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 no parameter semantics to document. With an empty input schema and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb, "Report," and names categories of counters, but "local image/event/database counters" is cryptic for a tool named vm_memory_metrics and does not clearly distinguish it from siblings like vm_status or vm_observe. The negative clause excludes one measurement but does not establish a clear purpose.

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?

It gives no when-to-use guidance and never names alternatives such as vm_status, vm_observe, or vm_memory_search. The only guidance is a narrow exclusion: "Does not measure total model reaction time," which is insufficient for choosing among the many vm_ siblings.

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