list_shaders

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so no credit is needed for safety. The description adds useful output-behavior details ('source preview or bytecode size') but does not disclose behavior around the limit/max_shaders controls or the meaning of 'calls' versus 'trace'. This is acceptable given the annotations, but not richly 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 long, front-loads the core purpose, and uses the second sentence to point to the relevant sibling tool. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Although an output schema exists and annotations cover the read-only profile, the overall definition is incomplete for a 4-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage. The required 'trace' parameter is unexplained, and the distinction between 'calls' and 'trace' plus the meaning of 'max_shaders' are absent, leaving gaps an agent must guess about.

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 compensate, but it provides no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain 'trace', 'calls', 'limit', or 'max_shaders', nor how they relate to 'source preview or bytecode size'. With four undocumented parameters, the agent is left to infer their roles from names alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies a distinct resource type ('shader creation calls') with a concrete output feature ('source preview or bytecode size'). It is clear enough to distinguish from generic call-listing siblings like get_calls and search_calls, though it does not explicitly name the siblings it differs from.

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 gives clear context for one alternative: 'Use extract_blobs to write D3D shader bytecode out for disassembly.' This implies list_shaders is for previewing/sizing rather than extracting bytecode, providing useful routing without explicitly listing all when/when-not conditions.

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