List framebuffers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds nothing beyond the purpose; it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like data volume or performance implications.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the tool's action. It is very concise, but extreme brevity may border on under-specification for a tool with no parameter descriptions.

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 and a simple input schema, the description should provide more context about the return value or structure of the list. It lacks details on what 'attachments' means or the format of the response, leaving the agent with incomplete information.

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%, yet the description fails to explain the captureId parameter. It only implies the parameter via 'from a capture' without clarifying its format, required values, or constraints.

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 lists framebuffers and attachments from a capture. The verb 'list' and resource 'framebuffers and attachments' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like webgl_list_visual_attachments, though no direct overlap exists.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context is given for selecting this tool over related list tools, such as webgl_list_captures or webgl_list_textures.

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