get_memory_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'collects' but does not confirm non-destructiveness, real-time nature, or system access requirements. For a metrics tool, this is a moderate gap in transparency.

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?

A single, clear sentence covering the tool's purpose. No wasted words; front-loaded with action and resource.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose by mentioning the metrics collected (including buffers and cache). However, it could be slightly improved by hinting at the return format or usage context.

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?

There are no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable since the schema is empty and coverage is 100%.

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 states it collects virtual memory and swap usage metrics including buffers and cache. The verb 'collects' combined with specific resource 'virtual memory and swap usage' makes the tool's function unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools focused on CPU, disk, network, etc.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_all_metrics or get_performance_summary. The usage is implied by the name and description, but without context or exclusions, an agent may not know the best tool for a broader metrics request.

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