capture_records

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: results are paginated one page at a time and Metal call names are present only 'when known' (i.e., may be absent). It does not explain ordering or how to detect the end of the stream.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the paging scope and the return content both land immediately. It is tight, though slightly terse for a tool with three parameters and no usage guidance.

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?

With no output schema, the description does carry the burden of describing returns, and it does so partially (records + call names). It omits record ordering, pagination termination, and the expected form of `capture`, leaving gaps an agent would need to resolve by trial.

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 67%: limit and offset are documented in the schema with defaults and caps, so the description need not repeat them. The description indirectly clarifies the undocumented `capture` parameter by identifying the domain (.gputrace command stream), but it never says whether that value is a path, identifier, or handle; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns a page of records from a .gputrace command stream, including Metal call names. It is clear and distinguishes itself from capture_summary by being record-level and paged, but it never names or contrasts the similar siblings (capture_summary, trace_query).

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives, despite seven siblings including capture_summary and trace_query that plausibly overlap. The agent must infer usage from the purpose statement alone.

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