memory_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds behavioral context by specifying the underlying command (`free -b`) and units (bytes), which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state non-destructive behavior or any side-effect guarantees, leaving a minor transparency gap.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the key information (RAM and swap usage in bytes) and directly references the command. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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 tool with no output schema or annotations, the description states the primary function but fails to describe the return structure (e.g., whether it returns totals/free/used fields or a breakdown of RAM versus swap). This ambiguity could hinder an agent trying to parse the result.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is fully covered (empty properties), so the description correctly avoids adding parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 clearly identifies the resource (RAM and swap usage) and the unit (bytes), referencing the exact command `free -b` for precision. It distinguishes from siblings like disk_usage or network_info, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'show'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_system_info or top_processes. There are no exclusions, preferred contexts, or examples, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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