GPU SMI Metrics

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose side effects or constraints. It mentions a GET endpoint, implying read-only, but does not explicitly state that, nor any potential latency, multi-GPU behavior, or error cases. The list of metrics is helpful but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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, clear sentence with no filler or repetition. The structure directly conveys the tool's purpose and expected output.

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 annotations, no output schema, and no notes on units, multi-GPU behavior, or refresh rate. The description leaves the agent guessing about return structure and scope, which is risky when the tool may have multiple GPUs.

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 schema has zero parameters (100% coverage), and the description implicitly confirms no input is needed. There is nothing ambiguous to clarify.

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 clearly states the tool gets detailed GPU metrics, listing specific metrics (name, utilization, memory, clocks). It is distinct as a general metrics tool, but does not explicitly differentiate from nearby siblings like sdnext_memory or sdnext_gpu.

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?

It conveys that this tool is for detailed GPU metrics, but gives no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives (e.g., sdnext_memory for memory-specific queries). No exclusions or comparison to siblings.

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