get_gpu_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a key safety trait, and explains the per-process VRAM tracking rationale. It adds context beyond the tool name, though it omits potential failure modes (e.g., nvidia-smi not available).

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, tightly-worded sentence that front-loads the essential information ('nvidia-smi wrapper') and efficiently includes all necessary details without waste. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 read-only status tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, key metrics, and safety. It does not explain return format, but the existence of an output schema makes that unnecessary. The only gap is the lack of explicit usage guidance, but this is partially covered under that dimension.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter details (as none are needed) but clarifies what the tool reports, which is sufficient.

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 identifies the tool as an nvidia-smi wrapper for GPU status, listing specific metrics (VRAM used/total, utilization%, per-process VRAM usage). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_health or get_service_status, which suggest broader system or service monitoring.

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?

Usage context is implied through the phrase 'to catch VRAM-overshoot,' indicating a troubleshooting scenario. However, there is no explicit statement about when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions, leaving the guidance somewhat implicit.

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