gpu_utilization

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the '[READ]' prefix merely restates it. The description does add the concrete payload shape (per-node count, util %, memory used/total), which is useful behavioural context. It says nothing about permissions, refresh cadence, or cost of the call.

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?

Two compact lines: the read-only marker and payload summary come first, then the single argument. Nothing is padded and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 correctly carries the burden of describing return values (count, utilisation %, memory used/total) and resolves the only parameter's default behaviour. The remaining gap is the absence of routing guidance against the many overlapping diagnostic siblings, which matters given this tool's crowded neighbourhood.

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 schema alone leaves 'target' opaque, but the description compensates by explaining it is an inference target name from config and that omitting it selects the default. That is exactly the semantic gap the schema fails to fill, though no format examples are given.

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 names a specific resource (GPU) and precisely enumerates what it returns: per-node GPU count, utilisation %, and memory used/total. That is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with related siblings such as diagnose_low_utilization or kv_cache_stats, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 '[READ]' tag signals this is a non-mutating observation tool, which is weak usage guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over the many other diagnostic siblings (diagnose_low_utilization, engine_inventory, kv_cache_stats), nor any exclusion or precondition.

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