skypilot_list_accelerators

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the non-obvious default that non-GPU accelerators are excluded unless gpus_only is disabled, but this is largely a restatement of the schema default; undocumented behaviors such as require_price defaulting to true (filtering out unpriced accelerators) are not disclosed.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the option guidance. The repeated 'Set X=Y to...' phrasing is slightly mechanical but each sentence carries information; minimal waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and read-only safety is covered by annotations. The gaps are the undocumented all_regions and require_price parameters and the lack of disambiguation from the accelerator-counts/realtime-availability siblings.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It names the name, region, quantity and cloud filter dimensions plus the gpus_only and case_sensitive defaults, but leaves all_regions and the consequential require_price untouched, so roughly a quarter of parameters remain unexplained.

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 and resource ('List available accelerators (GPUs/TPUs) across clouds') with scope made explicit. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely named sibling skypilot_list_accelerator_counts or skypilot_realtime_gpu_availability, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied through parameter guidance ('Set gpus_only=False to include...', 'Set case_sensitive=False...'), which tells the agent when to flip options. There is no explicit routing to alternatives (e.g. the accelerator-counts tool or realtime availability tool), so the when-not guidance is absent.

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