Suggest environment and configuration changes to maintain healthy VRAM usage. Get actionable heuristics for freeing NVIDIA GPU memory when loading new models.
Suggest env/config changes to keep VRAM healthy (heuristics).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it 'suggests' changes, which implies a non-mutating action, but it does not explicitly say it is read-only, nor does it describe the output format, whether it performs any analysis, or how the heuristics work. The agent cannot anticipate side effects or data returned.
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, concise sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the primary action ('Suggest') and resource, making it easy to scan. It earns full credit for conciseness.
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 absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It does not mention whether it returns a list, a message, or structured advice. It also lacks details on the nature of the heuristics or any examples. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to fully understand the tool's behavior or output.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to elaborate on any. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no params. The description aligns with the schema, which has an empty properties object.
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 a specific verb ('Suggest') and resource ('env/config changes') with a clear purpose ('to keep VRAM healthy'). It uses 'heuristics' to indicate the nature of the suggestions. However, it could be more specific about the types of changes (e.g., environment variables, configuration files) and the format of suggestions, so it falls short of a 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives such as `ensure_free` or `vram_status`. An agent is left to infer that this is an advisory tool, but there is no explicit direction on when it is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.