memory_guard_check

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds that it defaults to dry-run and can SIGTERM processes when dry_run=False. This clarifies the destructive behavior beyond what annotations provide, though it lacks details on consequences or reversibility.

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 short with two sentences. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second explains defaults and the destructive option. Every sentence is useful, though the second sentence could be clearer about the conditional execution.

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 covers the core behavior and parameters. Since an output schema exists, return value details are not required. However, for a tool with destructive potential, it could mention safety, permissions, or confirmation prompts. It is adequate 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description is crucial. It explains both boolean parameters (notify defaults to false, dry_run defaults to true) and that setting dry_run=False triggers SIGTERM. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's property names.

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 it runs a memory-guard pass. The verb 'run' and resource 'memory-guard pass' are specific. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like memory_guard_reclaim or memory_guard_status, but the name and context imply a one-time check action.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions defaults and an optional destructive behavior, but does not provide context for when to avoid it or which sibling handles related tasks.

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