check_system

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes a non-destructive detection/reporting action, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or guarantee no side effects. The implication is safe, but not fully transparent.

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 one sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Detect GPU hardware and verify Vulkan acceleration is available') and then lists specific outputs. Every phrase adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (GPU name, VRAM, Vulkan binary status, recommended Whisper model). It would benefit from mentioning format or structure, but is sufficient for a zero-parameter check tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain any. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adds no confusion.

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 it detects GPU hardware and Vulkan acceleration, reports specific details (GPU name, VRAM, Vulkan binary), and recommends a Whisper model. This distinguishes it from all siblings, none of which perform system checks.

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 it should be used before other tools that utilize GPU/Whisper, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. Given no overlapping siblings, the context is clear but lacks guidance on when not to use.

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