Xpu Probe

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load; 'detect and report' reasonably implies a non-destructive read and 'machine/fleet' scopes the search surface. It doesn't address cost/latency of fleet scanning, hardware/permission prerequisites, or whether results are cached.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Appropriately sized for a simple probe, though it leans terse enough that it omits guidance the dimension doesn't penalize as verbosity.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and the single parameter is fully documented in schema. Still, for a tool that may enumerate a whole fleet, the absence of any cost, permission, or timing context leaves an agent guessing.

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% and the schema itself explains that 'chip' is informational only and detection is exhaustive. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb pair ('detect and report') and resource ('available accelerators') with a scope qualifier ('current machine/fleet'). It's unmistakable against the brute_genius_* siblings, which occupy a different domain, though no explicit differentiation is offered.

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?

No indication of when to call this versus alternatives, whether it should be run before launching work, or whether it is expensive on a fleet-wide scan. The usage is only inferable from the stated purpose.

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