list_memory_usage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only operation through 'Get' and 'Returns', and the `free -h` analogy strongly implies a non-destructive system query. It does not explicitly state that it makes no system changes or require permissions, but for a simple query tool this is effectively conveyed.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and then adds specific return fields and a useful analogy. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy.

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?

This is a simple tool with no parameters and an output schema. The description fully explains what it does and what metrics it covers, and the `free -h` analogy provides familiar context. There are no missing pieces for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema confirms this. The description adds no parameter details because none exist. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-parameter tools.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'system memory usage summary', and further specifies the fields returned (total, available, used memory, swap statistics). This distinguishes it from sibling process-focused tools, and the analogy to `free -h` reinforces its 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?

The description provides clear context: use it to obtain a memory usage summary. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are all process-related (e.g., list_top_processes, kill_processes), so the intended use case is obvious. No explicit 'when-not' is stated, but the scope is unambiguous.

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