get_memory_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions remote execution via SSH and local fallback, which adds some behavioral context, but fails to disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, error handling, or output format. For a tool with system-level access, 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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one for the core purpose and one for parameter details. It's front-loaded with the main function, and the parameter explanations are necessary given the low schema coverage. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, system-level operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well but lacks behavioral context like safety or performance, leaving gaps that annotations or more detail could fill.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains both parameters: 'host' as an optional remote SSH target and 'username' as required for remote connections. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's basic titles, clarifying usage conditions and dependencies between parameters.

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 the tool's purpose with 'Get memory usage including RAM and swap details,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_cpu_info or get_disk_usage by focusing on memory metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_system_info, which might also include memory data, making it slightly less precise.

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 implies usage by detailing parameters for remote vs. local execution, suggesting it's for retrieving memory info from a system. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_system_info or get_hardware_info, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions beyond SSH requirements.

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