Summarize a GPU Trace range

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by naming the specific metrics returned, but it does not provide additional behavioral context such as output format, pagination, or any side effects. Given the annotations, the description is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence of moderate length, front-loading the verb and list of metrics. However, the word 'same' is somewhat awkward and redundant given the sentence already lists the metrics. Overall, it is concise and informative without wasting words.

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 tool with two well-documented parameters and comprehensive safety annotations, the description provides the essential context: what metrics are returned and the scope (full trace or range). The lack of an output schema makes the metric listing particularly helpful. It does not explicitly state the return format, but the metrics imply a structured summary, which is sufficient for this simple tool.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with descriptions, giving 100% coverage. The description adds the key semantic that the tool can operate on the full trace (when range_id is omitted) or on a specific exported marker range, which is not explicit in the schema. This goes beyond the baseline and clarifies the role of range_id.

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 returns a summary with specific metrics (Top-Level Throughput, Active Threads Per Warp, SM Warp Occupancy) for a GPU trace or marker range. However, the phrase 'Return the same ... summary' is ambiguous about what it is the same as, which slightly weakens clarity and fails to explicitly name a sibling tool like get_gpu_trace_summary.

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 mentions 'for the full trace or one exported marker range,' implying when to use it (when you need these metrics for a full trace or a range). It does not provide explicit alternatives or exclusions, such as naming get_gpu_trace_summary for the full-trace-only case. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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