local_gpu_generate_round

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the result is an optional bounded JPEG preview and that rounds are 'root or immutable revision', but it doesn't explain side effects, GPU usage, idempotency behavior, or state changes.

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 that is front-loaded with the verb and object. It contains no filler, but it's so terse that it sacrifices essential context. Still, for what it includes, it's well structured.

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 (8 params, 7 required, enums, nested objects) and lack of annotations or parameter descriptions, the description is too thin to allow an agent to use it correctly. The existence of an output schema helps with return values but not with usage context.

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?

Input schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of them (run_id, idempotency_key, action, edit_mode, plan, seed, change_summary). It only references 'round' and 'preview' without mapping to parameters.

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 action ('generate') and resource ('one root or immutable revision round') and mentions a return value ('optional bounded JPEG preview'). It distinguishes from sibling 'local_gpu_generate_image' by focusing on 'round' rather than a single image, but the concept of 'round' is not defined, so it lacks clear differentiation.

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 tool versus alternatives like local_gpu_generate_image or local_gpu_branch_run. The description does not mention scenarios (initial vs refine vs explore) or why a 'round' is needed.

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