vram_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that unavailable residency is null and that non-local memory pressure is a best-effort heuristic. However, it does not explicitly state the tool is read-only, mention error conditions, or performance implications, which are important for a monitoring tool.

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 front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first sentence and supporting details following. It avoids redundancy and every sentence adds information about scope or behavior.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description must convey what the tool returns. It lists the key content areas (device identity, health/timestamps, claims, activity, pressure) and explains null handling. This is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect, though exact formatting is not specified.

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 schema coverage is effectively 100%. There is nothing for the description to add about parameters. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 reports GPU and server-wide model residency, with a specific verb ('report') and resource. It enumerates what is included (device identity, health, claims, activity, pressure). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_claims or list_loaded, though the scope is distinct.

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 alternatives. The description does not mention use cases, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when a status report is appropriate despite the presence of many sibling tools.

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