gpu_temperature

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

Despite having no annotations, the description is minimal and does not disclose behavioral details such as whether the reading is instantaneous, cached, or aggregated. The output format (e.g., list or map) is not described, relying entirely on the output schema for understanding.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's function.

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 no-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but lacks contextual hints such as the unit consistency or the distinction from sibling tools. It does not mention whether the reading is instantaneous or periodic, but the output schema likely fills gaps.

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 tool has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. It correctly states what the tool returns.

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 returns core temperature in °C for each device, indicating a specific metric. However, it lacks a verb and does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like gpu_utilization or gpu_vram, though the distinct metric name 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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