diagnose_low_utilization

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, and the [READ] tag restates that. The description adds that this is an RCA/explanation tool rather than a raw metric fetch, which is genuinely useful context, but it says nothing about what the diagnosis returns, confidence, or any rate/cost considerations.

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?

Front-loaded with tags and the core action, then the argument, with no filler sentences. The 'Args:' block is slightly formal for a one-parameter tool but costs nothing in 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?

With no output schema, the description needs to convey what a diagnosis yields; the cause list partially does this but the agent gets no sense of the response shape or whether remediation hints are included. For a multi-step RCA tool this is adequate but thin.

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 carries the burden for the single parameter — and it does: 'Inference target name from config; omit for the default' explains both the value source and the optional/default behavior. That fully compensates for the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: explain an under-used GPU, with the diagnostic categories (batching / idle / overprovision) named up front. The [READ][RCA] tags immediately separate it from the plain metric siblings such as gpu_utilization, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent infers it should call this when a GPU looks under-utilized, and the cause list hints at what it searches for. There is no explicit when-to-use versus gpu_utilization or the other diagnose_* siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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