get_texture_info

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only retrieval via 'Get metadata' and lists return properties, but it does not disclose error behavior for invalid/unknown resource IDs, whether a capture must be open first, or that it deliberately does not return the raw texture bytes. Minimal disclosure for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 lean and front-loaded with its purpose, followed by a compact list of included properties. The Args block is mildly redundant with the schema (it repeats resource_id), but it is short and adds a touch of semantics, so the structure remains clean and efficient.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the listed properties (dimensions, format, mip levels) are partially redundant, which is acceptable. The description is mostly adequate for a single-parameter metadata getter, but it omits the relationship to get_texture_data and any prerequisite context, leaving the agent without full guidance on when and how to call it.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented resource_id parameter. It adds slight value by clarifying 'The resource ID of the texture', tying the param to the tool's purpose, but this is essentially restating the obvious — it does not explain how to obtain the ID or its expected format. Adequate but thin compensation.

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 ('Get metadata about a texture resource') and lists concrete properties (dimensions, format, mip levels), which clearly conveys that this returns texture descriptors rather than pixel data — a useful implicit distinction from the sibling get_texture_data. It earns a 4 rather than a 5 because it never explicitly names that sibling or its 'metadata vs data' difference.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description never says when to prefer this over get_texture_data, nor mentions that other tools such as open_capture may be prerequisites before a texture resource exists to query. The agent is left to infer the tool's role purely from the word 'metadata'.

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