get_draw_call_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output includes vertex/index counts, resource outputs, and other metadata, which gives some insight into its read-only nature and return content. However, it does not explicitly state it is read-only, mention any permissions, or note any side effects or limitations (e.g., only works on captured frames).

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-structured: it states the purpose in the first line, then provides the parameter explanation, and then summarizes the output contents. No redundant information, and the most important detail (what it does) is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 lacks context about the operational environment. It doesn't mention that a capture must be open or that event_id likely comes from get_draw_calls/results. While the output schema exists and the description mentions expected fields, prerequisites for calling this tool are not stated, making it incomplete for an agent encountering it for the first time.

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?

Despite the schema having no property descriptions, the description's Args section explicitly explains event_id as 'the event ID of the draw call to inspect,' adding meaning beyond the plain integer type in the schema. This fully clarifies the parameter's purpose, so the description compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves detailed information about a specific draw call. The verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific draw call' distinguish it from siblings like get_draw_calls (which lists draws) and find_draws_by_* (which searches by criteria). Purpose is 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an open capture), how to obtain an event_id (e.g., from get_draw_calls), or any scenarios where it should not be used. The usage context is entirely left to the agent to infer.

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