hpc_gpu_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Current GPU node availability' without mentioning whether the data is real-time, cached, or any side effects (e.g., read-only). This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and a clear purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 params, output schema exists), the description is nearly complete. It identifies the resource (GPU nodes) and the nature (current availability). While it could specify output structure, the presence of output schema mitigates this need.

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, so the schema already covers all semantics. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not mislead. It correctly implies a simple query with no inputs.

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 'Current GPU node availability' clearly indicates the tool retrieves availability status of GPU nodes, distinguishing it from siblings like hpc_gpu_entitlement and hpc_gpu_models. However, it lacks specifics on what 'availability' entails (e.g., counts, node identifiers), which slightly reduces clarity.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hpc_gpu_entitlement or hpc_gpu_models, leaving the agent to infer context from tool names.

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