analyze_accelerator_launches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with these. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context—such as performance implications, required input normalization, or output scope—beyond what annotations and schema already imply. A score of 3 reflects the minimal extra disclosure beyond 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 redundant words, and it is front-loaded with the action verb. It is appropriately short, though it omits usage and behavioral details that could be added without bloat. This is efficient but not maximally informative.

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?

The tool has an output schema and strong annotations, which mitigate the need for detailed return descriptions and safety disclosure. However, the description does not address the tool's relationship to its data source (normalized Perfetto/Nsight traces are mentioned in the schema but not the description), nor does it explain what the analysis output represents. Given the complexity and the large sibling set, the description is minimally viable but leaves notable usage 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?

Schema description coverage is 50%, with only 'limit' and 'run_or_artifact' described in the schema. The tool description does not explain the remaining parameters ('phase', 'comparison_run_or_artifact') or add any semantics beyond the schema. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters, leaving the agent to guess their meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Analyze') and identifies the resource types (runtime launches, graph launches, kernels, idle gaps). It clearly focuses on accelerator launch activity, distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_hotspots or analyze_memory. However, it lacks an explicit contrast with sibling tools, so it does not fully earn a top score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as extract_perfetto or analyze_execution, nor does it state prerequisites or when not to use it. The context shows many sibling analysis tools, and the lack of usage direction leaves the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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