compare_gpu_shapes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds context about what is compared (specs, pricing, price-per-GPU). It does not describe error handling or limits, but the safety profile is well-covered by annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, read-only) and the presence of annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It clarifies the output (comparison on specs, pricing, price-per-GPU) even without an output schema.

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 the 'shapes' parameter described in the schema. The description adds that it compares 'multiple' shapes and specifies 'OCI GPU shapes', which provides minimal additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb (compare), resource (OCI GPU shapes), and scope (specs, pricing, price-per-GPU metrics). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'recommend_gpu_shape' and 'get_gpu_shape_details' which have different purposes.

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 usage for comparing multiple shapes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'recommend_gpu_shape' or 'get_gpu_shape_details'. No 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.