graph_lifecycle

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden. It indicates a read operation (querying events) and mentions output includes timestamps and durations, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, require permissions, or describe potential side effects. The behavioral context is adequate but not fully 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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence clearly states the tool's function and output, and the second adds context about target workloads. No redundant information, every sentence adds value.

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 covers the tool's purpose, input (PID), and output (timeline with timestamps and durations). However, since there is no output schema, it would benefit from describing the return format (e.g., array of events) or providing more structural details. Overall, it is nearly complete for a query 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (pid, since, tsc). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema; it mentions timestamps but does not reference the time-range or compression parameters. Hence, 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 specifically states the tool shows a CUDA Graph lifecycle timeline for a given PID, detailing capture→instantiate→launch sequences with timestamps and durations. It also mentions target workloads (torch.compile, vLLM), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like graph_frequency or get_trace_stats.

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 the tool is for CUDA graph activity analysis but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., graph_frequency for frequency, get_trace_stats for general tracing). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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