graph_lifecycle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly indicates a read-only operation (shows timeline) and mentions timestamps and durations. However, it does not disclose what happens if the PID has no events, error handling, or return format details beyond minimal description.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the main purpose in the first sentence and adding valuable context in the second. No unnecessary words, efficient and clearly structured.

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 explains the tool's purpose and typical workloads but lacks details on output structure since there is no output schema. It mentions 'timestamps and durations' but does not specify the exact fields or format, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 3 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for pid, since, and tsc. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb 'Show' and clearly identifies the resource: CUDA Graph lifecycle timeline for a PID. It details the sequence (capture → instantiate → launch) and provides context of use cases (torch.compile and vLLM workloads), effectively distinguishing from sibling tools like graph_frequency.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (analyzing CUDA graph lifecycle events for specific workloads). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternative tools, such as graph_frequency for frequency analysis.

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