renderdoc_get_shader_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, requires specific states (e.g., an active capture), has performance implications, or what the output format might be, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse 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 complexity of shader inspection and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' or 'reflection data' entails, potential errors, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., needing an open capture), making it incomplete for effective use.

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%, with the parameter 'resource_id' fully documented in the schema as 'The resource ID of the shader to inspect.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as how to obtain the resource ID or format specifics, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 the resource 'detailed information about a specific shader including its reflection data', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'renderdoc_get_buffers' or 'renderdoc_get_textures' by specifying shader information, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an open capture) or exclusions, and it doesn't reference sibling tools like 'renderdoc_search_resources' for finding shaders or 'renderdoc_get_capture_info' for broader context.

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