renderdoc_get_draw_calls

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Get[s] a list' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, or details on pagination behavior beyond the schema. For a tool with no annotations, this lacks critical context like rate limits or error conditions.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 moderate complexity (list retrieval with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies what is retrieved but lacks details on return format, error handling, or dependencies. With no output schema, more information on the result structure would be beneficial for completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents the two parameters (start_index and count) with defaults and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a list retrieval, which the schema already covers. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'list of all draw calls/events in the capture with their properties', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'renderdoc_analyze_draw_call' or 'renderdoc_search_resources', which might offer similar functionality with different scopes or approaches.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open capture), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'renderdoc_analyze_draw_call' for detailed analysis or 'renderdoc_search_resources' for filtered searches, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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