tracy_native_capture

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

Annotations give readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: it drives CLIs, traces across main_thread and MC_SERVER threads, and requires no whitelist. It does not contradict annotations and provides meaningful context, though it does not specify blocking behavior.

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 a clear first sentence, usage condition, and parameter details. It is concise enough while including necessary guidance, but could be slightly shorter without losing clarity.

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 complexity and presence of output schema, the description covers prerequisites, usage flow, parameter meaning, and how the output (capture_id) integrates with sibling tools. It adequately informs the agent for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains each parameter: seconds range and default, name_contains filter with example, top_n default, address/port default, and label for diffing. This adds significant semantic 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 the tool captures function timings from a native Tracy server on TCP 8086. It distinguishes itself from siblings like tracy_get_function_costs and tracy_status by specifying the capture action and prerequisite conditions.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: use after tracy_status reports reachable and bin_present, and drive gameplay during the capture window. It also explains the output (capture_id) integrates with other tools, offering clear when-to-use context.

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