gate_wake

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses very little: no mention of startup latency, GPU quota/cost implications, authentication or Colab account requirements, or what state the instance is left in. 'Join' weakly implies idempotency, but the blocking semantics of the wait parameter are only covered in the schema, not the prose.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and the target resource before the optional qualifier. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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?

This is a resource-provisioning operation on a cloud GPU with no annotations and no output schema, and the description says nothing about cost, latency, failure modes, or what the caller receives on return. For a tool of this operational weight, one sentence leaves the agent under-informed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by supplying concrete example profile IDs ('moss-image', 'sd-latest', 'qwen-image') that the schema does not enumerate, giving the agent a usable vocabulary for the profile parameter. It adds nothing for wait, which is already well documented in the 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?

The description gives a specific verb pair ('wake or join') and a concrete resource ('shared Google Colab L4 GPU instance'), plus the notion of a model profile. This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like gate_status and gate_stop, though it never explicitly names those siblings or states the boundary.

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?

'Wake or join' hints that the call is safe whether or not the instance is already up, but there is no guidance on when to call this versus gate_status (to check state) or gate_stop, and no preconditions or exclusions are given. The agent must infer the workflow ordering entirely.

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