get_action_timings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that GPU timing counters may not be available on all hardware/drivers, sets expectations for return structure, and implies read-only behavior. However, it does not mention potential side effects or detailed error handling.

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 Args and Returns sections, making it easy to scan. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Some phrases like 'typically seconds' could be streamlined, but overall it is concise and informative.

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 has an output schema (not shown), the description still thoroughly describes return fields including available, unit, timings with fields, total_duration_ms, and count. It also covers all parameters and edge cases (optional parameters, partial match, exclusion). No gaps for a simple retrieval 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains each parameter: event_ids (optional, default null means all), marker_filter (partial match string inclusion), exclude_markers (list of strings to exclude). This adds context beyond the raw schema, such as the default behavior and the nature of the filters.

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 starts with a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('GPU timing information for actions (draw calls, dispatches, etc.)'). It succinctly states the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_draws_by_resource or get_draw_call_details, which focus on different aspects of draw calls.

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?

While the description explains how to use the tool via parameters (event_ids, marker_filter, exclude_markers), it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The context of sibling tools implies it's for timing, but no direct guidance is given.

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