memory_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys a read-only operation through 'Show', discloses that detailed mode reads /proc/meminfo, and mentions load averages as additional context. It does not specify output format or failure behavior, but for a metrics tool this is a minor gap.

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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The main purpose comes first, followed by the detailed-mode clarification and the extra load-average context.

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 one-optional-parameter tool, the description covers what it shows, what detailed mode adds, and the extra load-average context. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the return format or structure, which prevents a perfect score.

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 already fully describes the only parameter, 'detailed', with 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating that detailed mode includes buffer/cache breakdown, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Show RAM and swap usage.' It also explains the detailed-mode behavior and the extra load-average reporting, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like disk_usage, process_list, and system_health.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is relevant, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Given the sibling system_health could plausibly overlap, some routing guidance would improve this dimension.

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