measure_fps

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what side effects it might have, or what the returned value represents. It does not add any behavioral context beyond the name.

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?

The description is concise but not written as a sentence; it is a comma-separated list of keywords. It does not front-load a concrete meaning and 'every word should earn its place' is not satisfied because the terms are ambiguous.

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?

For a 0-parameter tool with no output schema, the description must clarify what the tool returns or measures. It fails to explain any output format, default behavior, or even its relationship to sibling measurement tools.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The schema already covers the parameter set (empty), and the description does not need to explain inputs. It also does not conflict with 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 'FPS, realtime flag, cook rate, throttle queue' is a list of terms rather than a clear verb+resource statement. It implies measurement of FPS but does not explicitly state the tool's purpose, and it fails to differentiate from sibling tools like measure_gpu or measure_cooktimes.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is a bare list with no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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