analyze_accelerator_launches

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already carry the safety profile, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds the entity scope being analyzed but does not disclose behaviors such as cross-run comparison via comparison_run_or_artifact or how outputs are aggregated.

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 ten-word sentence that front-loads the verb and communicates the full scope with zero filler. Every word 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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the read-only safety profile, the one-sentence description is adequate for the core use case. However, the comparison_run_or_artifact parameter implies a comparison capability that is never mentioned, and there is no context on how limit or phase shape the analysis, leaving an agent to guess at meaningful invocation options.

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 description coverage is exactly 50%: limit and run_or_artifact are described while phase and comparison_run_or_artifact are not. The description text itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so it neither compensates for the undocumented parameters nor adds value beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific verb ('Analyze') and a specific resource scope ('runtime launches, graph launches, kernels, and idle gaps'), which makes the tool's function clear and distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_memory or analyze_scaling that target different artifact types. It stops short of a 5 because it never names alternatives or explicitly explains what differentiates it from the other analyze_* siblings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the large sibling set (e.g., analyze_nsight_compute, analyze_hotspots, extract_perfetto), and no context on when to supply phase or comparison_run_or_artifact. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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