memory_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that output includes a warning/critical severity and a recommendation when memory is low, but it omits read-only confirmation, permission requirements, and whether it runs remotely or locally.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource with 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 single-parameter read-only diagnostic with an output schema, the description covers the essentials and even hints at return content (severity/recommendation). Minor gaps in host targeting and read-only confirmation keep it from a 5.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it fully (100% coverage), so the description is not required to add syntax. It adds no meaning beyond the schema's 'inventory server name', making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 a specific verb (report) and resource (memory usage) scoped to a Linux server, and mentions the warning/critical severity framing. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling diagnostics like cpu_usage and disk_usage.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and purpose (check memory on a host), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to alternative tools such as cpu_usage or disk_usage for other resource checks.

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