get_gpu_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers extensively. It discloses the read-only nature of the probes, the use of WMI and vulkaninfo, per-probe time limits, and graceful degradation when a driver is broken. It also states an important behavioral boundary: Direct3D feature levels are deliberately not reported and would be a guess if included. This is far beyond the minimum required.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then expands with concrete detail that earns its place: the exact questions answered, the failure mode it prevents, the probing mechanism, and a crucial exclusion note. Every sentence adds decision-relevant information without padding. It is longer than average, but the complexity of the tool's scope justifies the length.

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?

Given that the tool has no parameters, no annotations, but does have an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: what it reports, how it gathers data, how it behaves under failure, and explicitly what it does not report. The presence of an output schema means return-value details are already provided elsewhere, so nothing essential is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object with 100% coverage by definition. The baseline for zero parameters is 4 because there is nothing for the description to add about individual argument semantics. The description instead clarifies what information is gathered, which is appropriate for this parameterless tool.

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 leads with a specific verb and resource: 'Report the GPU adapters, driver versions and graphics toolchain.' It then enumerates the exact questions it answers (adapter, driver, Vulkan SDK, shader compilers, Vulkan API version), which clearly differentiates it from generic siblings like get_system_info. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: a renderer needs this information before generating code, and missing it causes guesses about extension and feature support. It also explicitly notes what is NOT covered (Direct3D feature levels) and directs the user to query that from the application. It does not name a specific sibling alternative, but the scope is so well defined that an agent can route correctly.

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