Monitor Gpu

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. Beyond implying a read of GPU utilization, it says nothing about authentication requirements, whether values are instantaneous or averaged, polling cost, or error behavior on hosts without GPUs.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but for a four-parameter tool it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It reads as a label more than a definition.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, but the description supplies no usage context, no distinction from the adjacent monitor_npu/monitor_metrics tools, and no operational caveats. For a monitoring tool in a large sibling family, that leaves real gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so host, port, scheme, and profile are all documented in the schema itself, and an output schema exists. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the baseline case for a fully documented 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?

States a specific verb+resource: '查看 GPU 使用率' (view GPU utilization). The GPU resource distinguishes it from the many sibling monitor_* tools (monitor_cpu, monitor_memory, monitor_npu), so an agent can route to it without opening the schema. It stops short of 5 because it gives no scope detail (per-GPU breakdown, sampling window, host targeting).

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, no mention of when to prefer monitor_metrics or monitor_npu instead, and no prerequisites or auth context. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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