get_shader_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (disassembly, constant buffers, resource bindings) but does not state side effects (e.g., read-only behavior), permissions, or error conditions. The 'get' verb implies non-mutating, but this is not explicit, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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: one purpose sentence, an Args block with per-parameter explanations, and a one-line return summary. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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 tool's simplicity, an output schema exists (which handles return structure), and the description covers purpose, parameters, and return content. There is nothing an agent needs to call it correctly that is missing. It fully addresses the 'what' and 'how' for this tool.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema. It explains that event_id is 'the event ID to inspect the shader at' and stage is enumerated with all six possible values. Since schema coverage is 0%, this description fully compensates and gives the agent clear guidance on what each parameter means.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'shader information', and specifies scope ('specific stage at a given event'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_draw_calls or get_texture_info, which deal with different resources. The return types are also previewed, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 you need shader details for a particular stage/event) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like find_draws_by_shader or get_pipeline_state. It provides context but lacks explicit exclusions or 'use instead of' guidance, so it's adequate but not fully proactive.

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