find_draws_by_shader

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses partial match behavior and that it searches all stages by default, and it mentions the return format (list with event IDs and match reasons). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention potential performance implications or pagination. The provided details are useful but not exhaustive.

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 efficient and well-structured. The first sentence states the core action, followed by a clear 'Args' section and a return description. There is no fluff, and the most important information (partial match, optional stage) is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the main aspects needed to invoke the tool: what it searches for, the parameters, and what it returns. Given the existence of an output schema (which likely details the return structure), the description does not need to over-explain returns. Minor gaps like handling of no matches or sorting are not critical. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains shader_name as 'Partial name to search for in shader names or entry points' and stage as 'Optional shader stage to search (if not specified, searches all stages)'. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema, which only defines types. The description effectively documents both 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('draw calls using a shader'), and even specifies partial matching. This distinguishes it from siblings like find_draws_by_texture and find_draws_by_resource, which target different attributes. The purpose is immediately obvious.

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 when to use it (when searching draws by shader name or entry point) but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or conditions for not using it. The parameter guidance (e.g., 'if not specified, searches all stages') is helpful, but the description does not contrast with siblings.

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