Linux Memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'detailed information' – it does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, returns structured output, or has any side effects. It adds little beyond the tool name itself, leaving the agent without knowledge of expected behavior.

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 sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It lacks any structural elements like sections or bullet points that could convey usage guidance. It is not 'appropriately sized' because it fails to provide the minimal information an agent needs; it is merely a terse restatement of the tool's name.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown), which may document return values, but the description does not explain the tool's place among siblings, its parameters, or any behavioral constraints. Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of annotations, an agent would need more context to invoke it correctly. The description is inadequate for confident selection and use.

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 input schema defines a single 'params' parameter that is an arbitrary object or null, with no properties described (schema coverage 0%). The description makes no mention of what parameters can or should be passed, such as filters, time ranges, or output format. Since the schema provides no meaning and the description does not compensate, an agent cannot determine how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 'Детальная информация об использовании памяти' (Detailed information about memory usage) clearly states the tool's purpose: it provides detailed memory usage data. The verb is implied ('provide' or 'get') and the resource is specific (memory). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like linux_host_stats or linux_processes, which may also report memory, so it loses a point for lack of distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many linux_* siblings (e.g., linux_host_stats, linux_processes, linux_network), an agent has no basis for selecting this tool. The description offers no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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