blacksmith_current_vcpu

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavior ('null when idle') and the architecture breakdown, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, potential rate limits, or the shape of the returned data. The added context is helpful but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the core idea immediately and every word contributes value, making it a model of 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: the temporal scope ('right now'), the breakdown ('by architecture'), and idle behavior ('null when idle'). It could improve by specifying response structure or what 'architecture' lists, but given the tool's simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

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 only parameter 'org' is already fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, including its default behavior. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema handles it.

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 identifies the resource (vCPU/job usage), the timeframe ('right now'), and the dimension ('by architecture'), distinguishing it from siblings like blacksmith_vcpu_timeseries which imply historical data. Even without an explicit verb, the noun phrase sets a specific and actionable purpose.

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 implies usage for current-time queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like vcpu_timeseries or cost trend tools. There is no exclusion or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving it to the agent to infer from sibling names.

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