get_memory_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description's 'READ-ONLY' and 'Never deletes files or stops processes' largely restate structured data. It does add that the source is /proc/meminfo and that no arguments are needed, which is modest added context given the already-strong annotation coverage.

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?

Three short, front-loaded lines with no wasted prose; the read-only guarantee is stated first. Minor redundancy between 'READ-ONLY' and 'Never deletes files or stops processes', which repeat the same point.

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 need not be explained, and the description covers scope and safety for a no-argument tool. It leaves minor gaps around how fresh/sampled the snapshot is versus sample_memory_trend, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. 'Takes no arguments' confirms the empty schema, though with 100% coverage there is nothing further to disambiguate.

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 resource (system RAM, swap, /proc/meminfo) and explicitly frames the operation as a read-only snapshot. The 'Use only for...' clause scopes it against siblings like get_process_memory and sample_memory_trend, which target different memory views.

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?

'Use only for current system RAM, swap, and /proc/meminfo' gives a clear usage boundary and implicitly excludes per-process memory tools. It stops short of naming the sibling to use for trends or per-process data, so the routing guidance is contextual rather than explicit.

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