rammap_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that process data is truncated to the top 10 and that three underlying diagnostics are combined, but says nothing about whether the call is read-only, its cost/latency, or any failure modes beyond the 'success' bool.

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 tight sentences front-load the purpose and the sibling equivalence. The '## Return Format' block duplicates what the existing output schema already conveys, which is the only mild redundancy.

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 aggregate tool with an output schema, the description covers what is aggregated and what comes back. It stops short of noting cost (three underlying queries in one call) or read-only safety, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies; no parameter-level guidance is possible or needed.

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 ('Combined memory diagnostic') and explicitly enumerates the three sibling tools it consolidates (rammap_physical, rammap_processes, rammap_file_backed). An agent can distinguish it from those siblings without opening any schema.

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?

The phrase 'One-shot equivalent of calling rammap_physical, rammap_processes (top 10), and rammap_file_backed' tells the agent exactly when to prefer this over three separate calls. It gives no explicit when-not condition, but the aggregation framing makes the tradeoff inferable.

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