calibrate_prover_hardware

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., state changes, destructive potential), required permissions, or whether calibration is a long-running process. The phrase 'determine optimal bidding parameters' is vague regarding actual 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, efficient sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the key action and intended outcome.

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?

The description lacks information about return value or output format, which is critical since no output schema exists. It also omits behavioral context like whether calibration is synchronous or requires specific hardware setup. This makes it incomplete for confident use.

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%, with the schema already explaining 'mode' and 'usdCostPerHour'. The description adds no further meaning beyond stating the tool's purpose, so it meets baseline without adding value.

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 tool performs 'hardware calibration' to 'determine optimal bidding parameters for maximum profitability', which is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_bid or get_prover_metrics.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as after hardware setup or before bidding. No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are mentioned.

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