find_available_gpu

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does contribute one important behavioral fact: the threshold applies to FREE memory at query time, not total capacity. It does not disclose result ordering, whether an empty result is returned when nothing qualifies, or whether the query is expensive/live.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and the filter, no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 simple one-parameter query tool with no output schema, the definition covers the core semantics but leaves the shape of the answer (list vs count, ordering, empty case) entirely unspecified. Adequate but with a clear gap for an agent deciding what to do with the result.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter. It does add the unit (GiB) and clarifies the parameter is a minimum-free threshold, which goes beyond the schema's bare 'number'. It does not say whether the comparison is exact or inclusive beyond 'at least', nor how fractional values are handled.

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 names the resource (GPUs) and a specific selection condition: at least required_vram_gb GiB free right now. This is more precise than the bare tool name and is distinguishable from list_gpus or get_gpu_info. It stops short of naming a sibling as the non-alternative, so it does not reach 5.

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?

'right now' implies this is a live availability query rather than an inventory listing, which is useful implied guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over list_gpus, estimate_model_fit, or recommend_gpu_for_model, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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