rammap_file_backed

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the underlying mechanism ('Uses WMI queries against the operating system cache manager') and what the output contains. However, it does not state that this is a read-only operation, whether it requires elevated privileges, or any performance cost of running WMI queries.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a short detail sentence and a return-format block. It is appropriately sized with no filler, though the return-format section repeats type information already implied by the output schema.

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 diagnostic tool with an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, output contents, and data source. It is largely complete, with only the missing read-only/permission context as a minor gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond the schema. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 and resource ('Show file-backed page cache summary from system working set') and enumerates what it reports (cached file extensions, top mapped files, system cache totals). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling rammap_physical/rammap_summary tools by its file-backed cache focus, though it never explicitly names a sibling.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other rammap_* siblings or alternatives. Usage is only implied by the resource name; no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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