get_gpu_peak_usage

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about read-only behavior, the return shape (a single object with max/min/avg?), or how the window interacts with the duration_seconds default of 3600. A read operation is implied by the name but not stated.

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 a single terse fragment with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise: there is no subject (which resource), no scope statement, and no front-loaded differentiation from siblings.

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 three-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, this one-line description leaves out the resource, the required gpu_id, the metric vocabulary, and the return shape. It is far from complete enough for an agent to call it confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only obliquely covers two of three parameters: 'a metric' and 'a window' hint at metric and duration_seconds without naming allowed metric values, units, or window semantics, and gpu_id — the only required parameter — is never mentioned.

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 an aggregation operation (max/min/avg of a metric over a window), which is a real verb+resource, but it never names the resource as a GPU or says the scope is one GPU identified by gpu_id. With 17 sibling tools including get_gpu_utilization and get_gpu_history, an agent cannot distinguish this from them without inferring from the name alone.

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 use this versus get_gpu_utilization, get_gpu_history, or get_all_gpu_metrics, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must guess that this is the peak/aggregate variant of a single-metric query.

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