memory_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return structure (dict with status and data) which adds some value, but it omits any error behavior, permission requirements, or side effects. For a simple read-only tool the risk is low, but the description is still limited.

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 sentences plus a minimal example. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the return details are concise. No wasted words.

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 memory info tool, the description provides purpose, return keys, and usage example. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to be exhaustive, and it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema trivially covers everything. The description includes an example showing no arguments, which reinforces the parameterless usage. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adequately complements this.

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 clearly that it returns RAM and virtual memory statistics with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like cpu_info and disk_info by focusing on memory.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is given. The context implies it is used to fetch memory stats, but there is no mention of exclusions or when a different tool might be preferred.

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