Get Memory Usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful provenance ('free -h and /proc/meminfo'), telling the agent roughly how values are sourced/rounded, but says nothing about freshness, sampling, or units beyond that hint.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource comes first and the data sources are parenthesized. It is efficient, though arguably borderline terse for a tool with no 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value. It names the returned data (RAM and swap usage) but not the structure, units, or whether a single snapshot is returned, leaving the shape of the response partly undefined.

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 the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to get wrong or clarify. The description introduces no misleading parameter expectations.

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 ('Returns RAM and swap usage'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_cpu_usage, get_disk_usage, and get_system_info. It does not explicitly name those siblings or state the boundary with get_system_info, so it stops short of a 5.

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 can infer it should call this when memory/RAM/swap metrics are needed. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or guidance about preferring get_system_info for aggregate host info versus this for memory detail.

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