GPU Infrastructure Scan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable context on what exactly is discovered (containers, K8s nodes, DCGM endpoints), enriching beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 sentence, immediately states the core purpose, and contains no extraneous information. It is optimally concise for the complexity of the 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 rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent), complete schema descriptions, and presence of an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It covers what the tool discovers, and the other metadata fills in behavioral and return details.

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 100%, and both parameters (k8s_context, probe_dcgm) have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter guidance, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 the specific verb 'Discover' and identifies three concrete resource types (containers, K8s nodes, DCGM endpoints). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like ai_inventory_scan or model_file_scan by focusing on infrastructure rather than AI model or inventory management.

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 usage for GPU infrastructure discovery but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ai_inventory_scan or scan. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, relying on the agent to infer context from the name and sibling list.

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