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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds behavioral context: it produces a probable diagnosis, it is not a scan, and it works from declared RAM/VRAM values rather than live hardware discovery. This helps set expectations about reliability and input handling.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and the disclaimers in the following sentences. It is efficient with no filler, though the cryptic '/r/...' fragment slightly reduces clarity.

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?

The output schema and annotations reduce the burden of describing return values and safety. However, with 8 optional parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves several inputs unexplained, including storage_free_gb despite the title mentioning storage bottlenecks. The main invocation modes are stated, but not the full input space.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains report_url and the ram_gb/vram_gb pair. The other six parameters (cpu_name, gpu_name, cpu_cores, unified_memory, storage_free_gb) receive no semantic guidance, and the title's storage focus is not mapped to storage_free_gb in the description.

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 tool identifies a probable bottleneck from either a report URL or a declared RAM/VRAM profile. It distinguishes itself from a scan, but it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like recommend_runtime or simulate_hardware_upgrade, and the shorthand '/r/...' is somewhat opaque.

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 explicit input guidance: provide report_url OR ram_gb and vram_gb, and clarifies this is not a scan. It does not mention alternatives to prefer over this tool or explain when to choose report_url versus direct values, but the primary invocation pattern is clear.

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