measure_energy

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses the methodology: sampling CPU power at 100ms, subtracting idle baseline, repeating runs (default 3x), and reporting mean/stdev/CV. It also notes expected wall time, providing clear behavioral insight.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear first sentence, method details, usage notes, and a time estimate. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers measurement methodology, parameters, output statistics, and wall time. It is largely complete, though the return format of the statistics is not explicitly described.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the purpose of 'repeats' (default 3x) and 'idle_seconds' (idle baseline). It also advises on handling paths, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not detail all parameters' formats or constraints.

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's purpose: measuring electrical energy consumed by a shell command. It uses a specific verb ('measure') and resource ('electrical energy in joules'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'compare_energy' by focusing on a single command.

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 usage for measuring energy of a shell command but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compare_energy' or 'energy_backend_info'. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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