memory/usage

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 only says 'Returns' implying read-only, but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no special permissions, or describe any potential limitations or output behavior beyond what the schema covers.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the alternative guidance is included succinctly. Every word earns its place.

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 description explains the core function and points to an alternative, but given no annotations and no output schema, it lacks explicit mention of side effects, return format details beyond parameters, or any prerequisites. It is usable but not fully comprehensive.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters (detailed, output_format, human_readable) – they are fully documented in the schema, so no credit beyond baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and a clear resource ('memory and swap utilization information'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool cpu/load-average by explicitly pointing to it for compute load, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Use cpu/load-average to check compute load,' which tells the agent when NOT to use this tool and directs to a specific alternative. This is clear guidance on usage versus siblings.

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