read_gpu_monitor

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, required state (monitor running), or effects on the system. Only the basic action is stated.

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?

Single sentence with no redundancy. It is concise and to the point, but slightly under-specified for completeness.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the output format (JSONL lines) and any state dependencies. It does not address what 'recent' means or how the monitor file is identified.

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?

Input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only hints at 'recent' and 'samples' (implicitly 'lines'), but does not explain 'name', 'path', or their roles. Schema carries all burden, but description adds minimal value.

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 'Reads recent JSONL samples from a GPU monitor file' clearly states the verb (reads), resource (GPU monitor file), and outcome (JSONL samples). It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_gpu' (current status) and 'sample_gpu_usage' (likely different sampling), but could explicitly contrast with these.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'check_gpu' or 'sample_gpu_usage'. No prerequisites (e.g., monitor must be started) or when-not conditions are mentioned.

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