npu_status

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. The word 'Report' implies a read-only query, and no side effects are suggested. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, required permissions, or return format. For a simple status tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the action verb 'Report'. Every word is necessary and the description is immediately scannable.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description fully specifies its sole function: reporting OpenVINO devices and Intel AI Boost availability. No additional context is needed for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 per the rubric, baseline is 4. The description does not need to clarify parameter meanings because schema coverage is 100% (empty object) and no parameters exist.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and clearly identifies the resource (OpenVINO devices and Intel AI Boost availability). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which focus on transcription, OCR, and semantic indexing) by addressing a distinct hardware/software status topic.

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 checking device status but does not explicitly state when to use it or when to avoid it. No alternatives are named, but given the tool's unique purpose, the context is reasonably clear and requires no exclusions.

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