get_process_memory

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 partially covered, but the description reinforces it with a concrete refusal instruction for kill/modify requests, which is actionable behavior beyond the flags. It adds no detail on permissions, cost, or pagination behavior of the mapping list.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the read-only scope before the return summary and the refusal rule. Every sentence 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 low-complexity, single-PID read tool with an output schema present, the description covers scope, return contents, and the refusal boundary. Nothing an agent needs to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents pid and mapping_limit thoroughly (including the top-N guidance). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond it, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: 'READ-ONLY memory inspection for one PID', and names what is returned (RSS, VMS, largest mappings). This cleanly separates it from the system-wide get_memory_info sibling and the trend/simulation tools.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not: 'This cannot stop, kill, or modify the process; refuse such requests' — a clear routing rule for destructive-sounding requests. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives (e.g., get_memory_info for system-wide data), so it is not a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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