godot_inspect_vram_usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds the specific scoping of what is queried (texture, buffer, render target), which is useful additional context. However, it does not describe output format or behavior of the 'detailed' flag, but this is minor given 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 concise sentence with no fluff, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It efficiently states what is queried, and there is no redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a simple inspection tool.

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 tool's low complexity (single optional param) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is sufficient. However, it lacks any hint of how to interpret the output or typical use cases, which could be beneficial. With a single parameter and no need to explain return values due to output schema, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter 'detailed'. The description does not mention 'detailed' at all, relying purely on the schema. The schema itself does describe 'detailed' as 'Whether to include granular breakdowns for texture, buffer, and video memory', which provides semantic meaning, but the tool description adds no value 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 'Query VRAM texture, buffer, and render target allocations' uses a specific verb ('Query'), names the resource (VRAM allocations), and lists the allocation types (texture, buffer, render target), which is clear. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like godot_get_performance_metrics or godot_inspect_rendering_device, but the focus on VRAM is specific enough to avoid major ambiguity.

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 a diagnostic/debugging use case (querying VRAM), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as godot_get_performance_metrics or godot_inspect_rendering_device. The context is inferable from the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on exclusions.

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