Ingero

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool checks but doesn't describe how it behaves: it doesn't mention whether it requires elevated permissions, if it's read-only or has side effects, how long it takes to run, or what happens if components are missing. For a diagnostics tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Run system diagnostics') followed by a colon and a specific list of checks. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy, making it highly efficient and easy to scan.

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 the tool's complexity (system diagnostics with multiple checks), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It clearly states what the tool does, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects) that annotations would normally cover. The output schema will handle return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those. However, for a tool with potential operational implications, more guidance would be beneficial.

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 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it naturally meets the baseline. It efficiently focuses on the tool's action without redundant parameter details, earning a 4 for appropriate handling of a parameterless tool.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Run system diagnostics') and enumerates the resources it checks (kernel version, BTF support, NVIDIA driver, CUDA libraries, running GPU processes). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on system diagnostics rather than causal chains, stacks, test reports, trace stats, demos, or SQL queries. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings in the diagnostics domain, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or suggest any of the sibling tools as alternatives for related tasks. The user must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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