gpu_metrics

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

The description details the exact nature of the output (raw rocm-smi native JSON) and lists included categories (clocks, voltages, etc.). This adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, which already signals safety.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and content, followed by usage guidance and format note. No wasted words, every sentence contributes.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description comprehensively explains what the tool returns and when to use it. Combined with annotations, an agent has full context for correct invocation.

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 input schema has no parameters (100% coverage by default). The description does not need to add parameter information since none exist, achieving baseline adequacy.

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 returns full rocm-smi -a --json output covering clocks, voltages, PCIe details, firmware, engine activity, throttle, and energy counters, specifying a distinct verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling 'gpu_status' by suggesting use when that is insufficient.

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 description explicitly says 'Use when gpu_status is not enough', providing clear context for when to prefer this tool over a sibling. However, it does not offer comparisons to gpu_processes, gpu_watch, or rocm_info, limiting full guidance.

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