rammap_treemap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key traits: it writes a self-contained HTML file, loads D3 from a CDN (network dependency), and opens in any browser. It stops short of stating where the file is written or whether it overwrites existing files, but the side-effect profile is well conveyed.

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 sentence, followed by clearly-sectioned Return Format and Examples. The color-category and hover-tooltip details are useful, if slightly decorative; overall it is well organized with little waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be re-explained (though the description does so anyway, harmlessly). For a file-generating visualization tool, the description covers output artifact, format, and dependencies adequately; only the output file location is left unstated.

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 100%, so both parameters (top_n, min_ws_mb) are already documented in the schema with defaults and bounds. The description's example call adds a usage illustration but no new semantic meaning; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (generate) and resource (interactive treemap of process memory usage), and further specifies the WizTree-style output with D3.js. An agent can tell it produces a visual HTML artifact rather than a text list, distinguishing it from rammap_processes, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 — an agent infers this is for visual/exploratory memory analysis, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or reference to rammap_processes/rammap_summary as alternatives. Nothing tells the agent when a treemap is preferable to a plain process listing.

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