get_server_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it returns cached data, may return error with code 'missing', details each format option, explains that format='full' returns structured per-module data with fields like observed, declared, probed_at, ttl_seconds, sudo_used, truncated, partial, raw_output, and notes that raw_output is scrubbed of secrets. No annotation contradiction.

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 moderately long but well-structured: core purpose first, then usage guidance, then format details. Every sentence adds value, though a few could be slightly condensed. Overall, it is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description comprehensively explains return values for each format, error handling, and sequencing with build_server_memory. It covers all needed context for an agent to use the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond schema: for 'format', it explains each enum value in detail ('summary gives a token-efficient Markdown digest', 'full returns the raw JSON for all modules', 'context_block returns a <CONTEXT name=...> envelope'), and for 'instance_id' it confirms 'Instance ID, name, or custom-server name'. This goes well beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Return cached memory (OS, runtimes, services, web stack, logs) for a managed instance,' using a specific verb ('return') and resource ('cached memory'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like build_server_memory by advising to call this first and only call build_server_memory if an error occurs.

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?

The description provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Call FIRST before issuing SSH commands' and 'the cached summary frequently answers ... questions without an SSH round-trip.' It also explains what to do on error ('if this returns an error with code='missing', call build_server_memory(instance_id)'), offering explicit alternatives and error recovery.

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