monitor_gpu

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific metrics returned ('utilization percentage and VRAM used'), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It could mention sampling interval but that's a minor gap for a zero-param monitor tool.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The core purpose and metrics are front-loaded, and the routing guidance is compactly appended. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only monitor tool, the description is complete. It states the returned metrics and the usage context. No output schema exists, but the description adequately conveys what the agent will receive.

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 zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly focuses on output semantics rather than parameters. No parameter documentation is needed.

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 specifies a clear verb and resource: 'Live GPU usage' with concrete metrics ('GPU utilization percentage and VRAM used'). It explicitly contrasts with the sibling get_system_gpu, making the tool's distinct purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('when the user asks how hard their GPU is working right now') and a clear exclusion ('Do NOT use for GPU model info — use get_system_gpu for that'). This leaves no doubt about when to select this tool over its sibling.

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