Verify local hardware capacity before running local model workloads by checking VRAM allocation, GPU headroom, and tmpfs RAM availability.
Check local hardware capacity (VRAM allocation, GPU headroom, and tmpfs RAM availability).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden. "Check" implies a read-only, side-effect-free probe, and naming allocation/headroom/tmpfs tells the agent what dimensions are reported. However, it says nothing about whether the call is cheap or slow, whether it can fail when no GPU is present, or how results are shaped.
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 the resource named immediately and the three inspected quantities parenthesized. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description is the only source of information about what comes back, and it gives just a metric list without saying whether values are absolute, percentage, or threshold-flagged. For a no-argument diagnostic this is close to adequate, but the agent cannot anticipate the response well enough to plan around it.
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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing the description could add or omit on this dimension. The empty schema is consistent with the no-argument framing of 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?
Names a specific verb and resource ("Check local hardware capacity") and enumerates the three things inspected: VRAM allocation, GPU headroom, tmpfs RAM availability. That is far more concrete than the name alone. No sibling differentiation is attempted, but the siblings (slice, seeds, repair_ollama) are functionally distant, so the risk of confusion is low.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no statement of the precondition that should trigger a hardware check (e.g. before allocating, before a large job, after an OOM error), no when-not-to-use, and no reference to alternatives. The word "Check" implies a diagnostic read, but the agent must infer the trigger condition entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.