get_gpu_clocks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether the value is a snapshot, whether it is graphics-only versus memory clock, what happens with an invalid gpu_id, or whether the reading is throttled/live. The only added fact beyond the name is the MHz unit.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with the metric, which is good, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency. One sentence that also stated the read verb and the gpu_id requirement would still be concise and far more useful.

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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum identify the required GPU argument and what the returned reading represents. Neither is covered, leaving the agent to guess at invocation details and the meaning of the returned clock value.

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 0% and the single required parameter gpu_id is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description never mentions that a GPU identifier must be supplied or where to obtain one, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 fragment names a specific metric (graphics clock) and its unit (MHz), which does differentiate it from siblings like get_gpu_temperature, get_gpu_memory or get_gpu_power. But it is a noun phrase with no verb and no statement of scope (per GPU? current vs max?), so the agent must infer that this is a read operation returning the current graphics clock for a given GPU.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as get_all_gpu_metrics or get_gpu_info, and no mention that a gpu_id from list_gpus is required first. The only implied usage is that an agent wanting clock speed should pick this tool, which an agent could infer from the name alone.

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