find_draws_by_resource

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the exact-match behavior, the return payload (draw calls with event IDs and match reasons), and the scope of resources searched. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but for a read-like search this is sufficient and adds meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 well-organized, with a clear opening line, an Args section, and a returns/scope section. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description covers the key return details (list of draw calls with event IDs and match reasons) and the resource scope. It lacks information about pagination or limits, but these are minor for a single-parameter search tool, so overall it is appropriately complete.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the resource_id parameter with an example format (e.g., 'ResourceId::12345' or '12345'). This provides practical guidance on acceptable input, which the schema alone does not offer, making the description essential for correct invocation.

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's function: finding draw calls that use a specific resource ID via exact match. It specifies the resource types searched (shaders, SRVs, UAVs, render targets, depth targets), distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_draws_by_shader and find_draws_by_texture, which use different criteria.

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 implies usage when a resource ID is known, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusion criteria. It never references sibling tools, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the description alone.

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