Command details

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the 'include' field is optional, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose what happens if no include is specified (default fields), any rate limits, or return format. The added value is minimal.

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 sentence of 9 words, very concise and front-loaded. However, it is too brief to fully cover the tool's purpose. It earns its place by being efficient, but could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.

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 lack of output schema and low parameter description coverage, the description fails to provide complete context. It does not explain the return value, how to effectively use the include parameter, or how this tool fits with sibling tools. An agent may not know what 'details' means or the significance of the include options.

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. It only mentions that 'include' is an optional field, but does not explain the meaning of any parameter, especially captureId and commandId, which are required. The enum values in the schema are self-explanatory, but the description adds almost no 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 verb 'get' and the resource 'single command', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like webgl_list_draw_calls (which lists commands) and webgl_get_program_details (which gets details for a different resource). The optional field includes is also mentioned.

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?

No context is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. For example, an agent might wonder when to use this vs webgl_get_finding_details or webgl_get_state_diff. Explicit guidance is lacking.

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