get_memory_info

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

With no annotations, the burden falls on the description. It discloses the return contents (free, used, cached, swap) and the behavior that a default host is used when omitted. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-free nature or remote connection implications, leaving some ambiguity.

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 appropriately brief and front-loaded with the main action. It includes only necessary details about the parameter and return value, with no wasted words.

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 simple read-only memory tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the single parameter and return contents. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but given tool simplicity and sibling context, it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema provides only type/default for host_name with 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates fully by explaining that host_name references a named host from SSH_HOSTS config and that omitting it uses the default host, adding significant meaning.

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 'Get memory and swap usage details' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_cpu_info, get_disk_info, and get_network_info by focusing on memory/swap specifics.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains the host_name parameter (default host if omitted) but does not mention tool selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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