sample_memory_trend

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint, so the 'READ-ONLY' label largely restates them. The description adds that output is a time series over a requested duration (which implicitly explains why idempotentHint is false), but says nothing about sampling cost, blocking behavior, or whether limiting the duration affects fidelity. Net: modest value beyond annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the operation and its identity front-loaded ahead of the exclusion list. Every clause carries routing information.

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 re-explained, and the schema bounds the duration/interval parameters. The only minor gap is that cost or behavior at the 30s maximum, and whether sampling blocks the caller, is left unstated for an openWorld, non-idempotent tool.

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%, with both duration_seconds and interval_seconds documented including defaults and bounds, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description adds no format or interaction guidance (e.g., how interval relates to total sample count), making 3 the correct baseline.

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 with scope: 'READ-ONLY time-series sampling of system memory'. The exclusion list ('not for a single snapshot, files, page algorithms, or processes') maps cleanly onto the sibling tools get_memory_info, analyze_file_distribution, simulate_page_replacement, and get_process_memory, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly states the selecting condition ('Use for trends over a requested duration') and enumerates the cases where it should not be used, one per competing capability. This is a clear when/when-not statement with the alternatives identified by category.

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