Inspect GPU and displays

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states 'Read-only' (reinforcing the readOnlyHint), and crucially discloses the offline behavior with a fallback return of '{ connected: false, reason }'. It also lists the types of data returned, exceeding what the annotations provide.

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 sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the key safety property ('Read-only'), then lists the return contents, the use case, and the offline fallback. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and good annotations, the description is complete. It covers what data is returned, when to use it, and how it behaves offline. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the explicit enumeration of returned data categories, making this a fully specified tool description.

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 already provides full coverage (100%) for the 'include' parameter, including an enum and description. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: it returns GPU info, monitor topology, and Perform Mode status. The verb 'returns' and specific resource scope make it distinct from siblings like get_td_info or get_td_performance, and the use-case mention ('plan output mapping, dome rigs, and multi-display shows') further differentiates it.

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 gives a clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use to plan output mapping, dome rigs, and multi-display shows without leaving the chat.' It implies usage without explicitly stating when not to use it or naming alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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