gpu_family

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it details the result contents (chips, additions, limits, shared limits, footnotes) and notes that source URLs are included, which helps the agent understand provenance and output shape.

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 definition is a single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists what is returned. Every clause seems to earn its place, though the sentence is somewhat long and could be slightly clearer with separation, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining the return contents in detail, including source URLs. An agent has enough information to understand what to pass and what to expect back.

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 the schema already documents the 'name' parameter with examples 'Apple7' to 'Apple10' and chips like 'M1 Pro'. The description repeats the family/chip duality with the same examples, adding little beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (one GPU family) and enumerates exactly what is returned: its chips, what it adds, its limits, shared limits, and footnotes. It is clearly distinguishable from the perf/trace-oriented siblings, which deal with runtime data rather than static published facts.

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 when to use it (to look up Apple-published facts for a GPU family or chip), but it never explicitly contrasts with alternatives or states when not to use it. Given the siblings are in a different domain (performance traces), the need for explicit alternatives is lower, but the guidance remains only implied.

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