get_texture_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It details behavioral aspects: can read specific mip levels, slices (with cube map index mapping), MSAA samples, and depth slices for 3D textures. It also mentions the return format (base64-encoded bytes with metadata). However, it lacks details on performance or side effects.

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 a single paragraph with clear 'Args' section. It is efficient and front-loaded, though slightly longer than ideal. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema mentioned, the description covers parameter semantics and return value adequately. However, it lacks usage guidelines and does not mention potential limitations (e.g., data size). It is mostly complete for a read operation.

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 add meaning. It explains each parameter: 'resource_id', 'mip', 'slice' (with cube map index mapping), 'sample', and 'depth_slice' (for 3D textures, with behavior when specified). It also states defaults, adding significant value beyond the schema.

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 'Read the pixel data of a texture resource', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_texture_info' (which likely returns metadata) by focusing on pixel data retrieval.

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 usage for reading pixel data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_texture_info' or 'find_draws_by_texture'. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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