find_draws_by_texture

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful traits beyond the name: partial matching on texture resource names, searching SRVs/UAVs/render targets, and returning event IDs with match reasons. This gives an agent a clear picture of what the search covers, even though side-effect language is not explicit.

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 compact and well-structured, with a clear one-line purpose followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important behavioral scope statements are 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?

Given the single parameter, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers the key operational context: input semantics, search domains, and return contents. It does not discuss potential side effects or performance, but for a search-style tool the description is largely sufficient.

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 explain the parameter. It clearly defines texture_name as a partial name to search against texture resource names, which directly compensates for the bare schema. It could add case-sensitivity or wildcard details, but the essential semantics are present.

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 verb and resource—find draw calls by texture name—and clearly differentiates from siblings like find_draws_by_shader or find_draws_by_resource. The addition of 'partial match' and 'Searches SRVs, UAVs, and render targets' makes the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 usage context is implied through the description: use this when you need to locate draw calls referencing a texture by name. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like find_draws_by_resource or find_draws_by_shader, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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