get_draw_calls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the hierarchical return structure and describes the semantics of each filter (e.g., 'partial match', 'only include actions with flags'), making the tool's behavior predictable. While it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, the verb 'Get' implies it, and no contradictions exist.

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 opens with a one-sentence summary, then lists parameters in an 'Args' block. It is efficient and front-loaded, with no filler. The parameter explanations are concise but complete. It could arguably be more compact by merging some lines, but the structure is clear and appropriate for a tool with many filters.

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 tool has seven optional parameters and returns a hierarchical tree of GPU actions. The description covers all parameters and states the output structure ('hierarchical tree of actions including markers, draw calls, dispatches, and other GPU events'). Since an output schema exists, detailed return type specifications are not required. No critical information is missing.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no property descriptions. The tool description fills this gap by explaining every one of the seven parameters, including defaults and meaning (e.g., 'Include child actions in the hierarchy', 'partial match' for marker_filter, and the list of flag names in flags_filter). This is 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('all draw calls and actions'), and a scope ('current capture'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_draw_call_details' (details of a single draw call) and 'find_draws_by_shader' (filtered search), so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 purpose implies usage when an agent needs the full picture of draw calls and actions, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'find_draws_by_shader' or 'get_frame_summary'. No when-not-to-use conditions or alternative names are mentioned, leaving it to inference.

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