GPU & display info

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds beyond: it reveals that the tool returns live NVIDIA stats (implying it may depend on NVIDIA hardware) and includes display information. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences: first lists the data fields, second gives usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with essential info.

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 low complexity (no parameters, read-only annotations), the description covers purpose and usage. It lacks an output schema but provides enough structure (model, VRAM, etc.) for the agent. Could mention platform dependencies (NVIDIA-only?) but overall complete enough.

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?

No parameters are defined (0 params, 100% schema coverage). Baseline is 4. The description adds value by listing the categories of information returned (details, stats, displays), compensating for the lack of output 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 tool retrieves graphics card details (model, VRAM, driver version), live NVIDIA stats (utilization, VRAM in use, power), and connected display info (resolution, refresh rate). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like system_overview and performance_snapshot by focusing specifically on GPU and display data.

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 explicitly says 'Use for gaming performance questions, driver checks, and is my monitor set up right.' This provides clear use cases. It does not explicitly exclude other contexts, but the purpose is specific enough to guide the agent.

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