rammap_physical

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: it discloses the data sources (WMI plus performance counters), that it runs as a single PowerShell script, and that no binary download is required. It does not explicitly state read-only status, but the operation is self-evidently a read-only view, so the gap is minor.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, follow-up details are partitioned under a clear 'Return Format' header, and each sentence conveys distinct information (categories, data source, no-download trait). Slightly long due to the full category enumeration, but nothing is wasted.

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 tool is a simple read-only view and the description covers purpose, data-source mechanics, and even the return shape, so an agent has what it needs to call it. With an output schema present the return-format text is somewhat redundant, but no critical calling information is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and the sole 'detailed' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description never references or expands on the 'detailed' flag, offering no syntax or effect beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: 'Show physical memory usage breakdown by category,' and enumerates the exact categories (active, standby, modified, zeroed, free, bad, etc.) plus totals. It clearly conveys scope, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling rammap_summary/rammap_processes/rammap_file_backed tools.

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 only implied by the purpose ('RAMMap-style view' of physical memory); there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no routing to the closely related rammap_* siblings. An agent can infer the intent, but nothing tells it when to prefer this over rammap_summary or rammap_treemap.

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