get_draw_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It details what the tool resolves and returns, including per-slot bind groups, vertex buffers with capture command indices, and draw parameters. It implies a read-only diagnostic behavior without explicitly stating side effects, but the enumerated behavior is substantially transparent.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose and output components are front-loaded, followed by a direct usage statement. Every clause contributes useful information.

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?

For a complex GPU-state inspection tool with no output schema, the description is notably complete: it names all major output categories and clarifies vertex-buffer provenance via command indices. Together with the schema, an agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its result.

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 100%, so the schema already documents captureId and commandIndex. The description adds contextual framing around what the resolved state includes, but it does not materially extend the meaning of the parameters beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 identifies the verb ('Resolve'), the resource ('full GPU state for a draw/dispatch command'), and enumerates concrete contents such as bound pipeline, bind groups, vertex buffers, index buffer, and draw params. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_commands, get_object, and decode_vertex_buffer by focusing on complete per-command GPU state.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to diagnose what a specific draw actually read.' It does not provide explicit exclusions or compare itself to alternatives, but the use case is clear and actionable.

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