Inspect GPU Trace binary report

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by noting the report is 'retained' and by detailing the version-matched embedded protobuf schema inventory, which goes beyond a bare 'inspect' call. It does not contradict annotations.

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 starts with the action 'Inspect' and then lists the return items without any filler. Every clause provides useful detail, making it concise yet comprehensive. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 that there is no output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns, and it does so thoroughly: frame timing, queues, counts, timestamp coverage, shader-profiler inventory, and schema inventory. With read-only annotations and a single documented parameter, this is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There is only one parameter, report_id, and the schema describes it as 'GPU Trace report session id returned by collect_gpu_trace_report or open_gpu_trace_export.' Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the specific verb 'Inspect' with a clear resource: 'the retained .ngfx-gputrace WRPV container.' It then enumerates the exact data returned (frame timing, queues, counts, timestamp coverage, shader-profiler inventory, protobuf schema inventory), making it unambiguous and easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_gpu_trace_summary or inspect_capture.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need an overview of a retained GPU trace report's internals. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the specific phrasing 'retained .ngfx-gputrace WRPV container' and the detailed return list make the usage context obvious. This is a clear context without explicit alternative guidance, so it fits a 4.

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