Get memory information

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds mild context by noting that both physical and swap memory are covered, but it discloses no other behavioral details such as what 'detailed' includes, remote host behavior, or potential limitations.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and scope with no filler or redundancy. The phrase 'including physical and swap' adds value beyond the title without extra 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 tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and a readOnly annotation, the description is mostly sufficient. It is slightly thin on how it differs from sibling system/hardware information tools and what 'detailed' includes beyond physical and swap, but those gaps are partially mitigated by the output schema.

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 single optional parameter 'host' is fully described in the schema as 'Remote host to connect to via SSH', so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action 'Get' and the resource 'memory information', and adds useful scope by specifying 'including physical and swap.' It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like get_system_information or get_hardware_information, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 such as get_system_information or get_hardware_information, nor any mention of the optional remote host scenario. The only usage signal is the tool name itself, leaving selection logic entirely to inference.

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