find_gpus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It explains the output structure (found, summary line, placements best first) and the caveat that alternatives include shared GPUs 'only for small experiments.' This gives reasonable transparency about the tool's limitations and operation. It does not mention any side effects, but the find operation is implicitly read-only.

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 short paragraphs with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance and return details. Each sentence adds value—there is no filler. It is concise and well-structured, though the second paragraph could be tightened without losing information.

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 there is no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining return values and the ranking logic. It clarifies edge cases (nothing fits) and the limitation of shared GPUs. However, it leaves the hosts parameter unexplained and does not cover potential preconditions or error handling, which is a minor gap but not critical for a find 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explicitly explains count and min_free_gb in the opening sentence, providing units and semantics. However, the hosts parameter is never mentioned, leaving an agent to guess its purpose. This is a significant gap for an otherwise well-explained tool.

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 opens with a specific verb (Find) and a precise resource: idle GPUs with at least a given free VRAM. It clearly scopes the tool to placement queries and differentiates it from siblings like list_hosts and fleet_status by stating 'Call this first for any placement question.' No ambiguity about what it does.

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 'Call this first for any placement question,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. It also explains the alternatives returned when nothing fits, which implies a fallback scenario. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with the sibling tools beyond the 'first' directive.

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