gpu_fft

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It reveals the adaptive GPU/CPU selection, but does not mention auth needs, rate limits, side effects, data size constraints, or response format. Significant gaps remain for a computation tool.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and adaptive behavior. No wasted words, but some additional structure (e.g., separating parameter notes) could improve without harming conciseness.

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 having an output schema, the description is too sparse for the tool's complexity (5 parameters, adaptive logic). It fails to explain parameter roles, usage context, or the selection criteria, making it incomplete for effective agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides zero information about any of the 5 parameters (data, operation, etc.). The agent receives no guidance beyond the raw schema, making this dimension severely lacking.

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 verb 'Compute' and the resource 'FFTs', and adds the nuance of GPU vs CPU selection. This distinguishes it from a generic FFT tool (e.g., if one existed). The adaptive behavior is a key differentiator and is explicitly mentioned.

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 mentions 'when beneficial' but does not specify criteria for GPU vs CPU use, nor does it provide when-not-to-use or alternatives. Lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or trade-offs, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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