gpu_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool returns live telemetry via nvidia-smi, lists the data fields, and mentions a warning for missing GPU/driver. This is fairly transparent, though it does not explicitly state it is read-only or discuss permissions or side effects, but the nature of a status tool suggests safety.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with 'GPU inventory + LIVE telemetry'. It then lists key data points and an edge case in a single, well-structured sentence. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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 tool with an output schema (not shown but exists), the description is complete. It explains the data returned (inventory + live telemetry) and a warning condition. No further context is needed given the simplicity and the presence of an output schema.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema is 100% covered (empty). The description adds value by explaining what the tool does without needing to clarify parameters. Per guidelines, a 4 is baseline for no parameters.

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 provides GPU inventory and live telemetry, listing specific data points like name, driver, temp, etc. The verb+resource is implicit from the name and description, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cpu_status or hardware_inventory by focusing specifically on NVIDIA GPUs and real-time metrics.

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 alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it compare with sibling tools like hardware_inventory or live_sensors. The usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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