get_gpu_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the content of the response (model, usage, temperature, VRAM) but says nothing about failure modes when no GPU/tooling is present or about formatting/pagination. Some added value, but modest.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Slight redundancy between 'usage' and 'VRAM usage', but overall tight and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by listing exactly which GPU metrics are returned, which is what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. The only gap is behavioral context for the no-GPU case, which annotations do not cover.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this lands at 4. The description correctly spends its words on outputs rather than inventing parameter guidance.

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?

Specific verb 'Get' with a clearly scoped resource (GPU) and an enumeration of the four returned data points: model, usage, temperature, VRAM usage. This is trivially distinguishable from siblings like get_cpu_info and get_memory_info by resource alone, though it never explicitly references them.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. driver/GPU presence), no mention of alternatives. For a zero-parameter read getter the invocation context is largely self-evident, so implied usage is adequate but nothing more.

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