get_pipeline_state

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the exact nature of the operation (a read of pipeline state) and details the full return structure, which constitutes behavioral transparency. It does not mention side effects or prerequisites beyond the event_id, but as a 'get' operation those are not expected, so the coverage is adequate.

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 well-structured with a lead sentence stating the purpose, followed by an Args section and a bulleted list of returned state. It is concise yet comprehensive, front-loading the core purpose and using formatting for readability without unnecessary fluff.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it specifies the input, explains the output in detail, and provides enough context for an agent to use it correctly. The inclusion of a full return breakdown makes it self-sufficient even without inspecting the output schema.

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?

The schema only defines event_id as an integer with no description (coverage 0%). The description adds an explanation: 'The event ID to get pipeline state at', which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the raw type. It compensates for the schema's lack of description, though more detail about what constitutes a valid event ID (e.g., from a capture) would be even better.

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 retrieves the 'full graphics pipeline state at a specific event' and enumerates the detailed components (shaders, resources, samplers, etc.). This verb-resource pair is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like get_draw_call_details or get_shader_info, which focus on narrower aspects.

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?

It implicitly conveys usage by requiring an event_id and stating the tool returns state at that event, implying one should use it when needing a comprehensive snapshot. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, which is a minor gap given the diverse sibling set.

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