quest_frame_timing

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses useful behavioral traits: it captures ~6s of the VrApi metrics stream and falls back to gfxinfo for non-VR apps. It does not mention prerequisites, permissions, or whether the capture is a blocking call, leaving some transparency gaps.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value: metrics, capture duration, and fallback behavior. No fluff or irrelevant detail.

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?

It covers the main purpose, metrics, capture window, and fallback, but lacks detail on return value structure and parameter semantics. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain more about what the agent will receive and how parameters affect the call, making it only partially complete.

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 has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain device_id or package_name. While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's names and defaults, and it does not clarify how these parameters are used or their optionality implications.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('live VR frame timing for the running app'), and enumerates the exact metrics returned (FPS vs target, stale frames, GPU/CPU utilization, app GPU time vs frame budget). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like quest_app_memory or quest_thermal by focusing on VR frame timing.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for a running app's VR frame timing and notes the fallback to gfxinfo for 2D/panel apps, providing context on when it applies. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full comparative guidance.

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