List timed GPU Trace marker ranges

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds value by specifying what data is returned (full marker path, hierarchy, timing bounds, paired event ids) and connects the marker ids to PC-sampling scoping, giving behavioral context beyond the structured 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and content, followed by a practical use case. Every phrase earns its place; no filler or redundant information.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, low schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It lists what the returned ranges contain but fails to explain how filtering parameters (e.g., path_regex, queue_index, exact_timing_only, minimum_duration_ms) affect results, nor does it describe ordering, pagination behavior, or edge cases.

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?

With only 14% schema description coverage (only report_id is described), the description must compensate for the other six parameters. It does not explain path_regex, queue_index, exact_timing_only, minimum_duration_ms, limit, or offset. No parameter semantics are provided beyond the implicit notion of pagination from 'Page through'.

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's function with a specific verb ('Page through') and resource ('D3D12 BeginEvent/EndEvent ranges decoded from the binary report'). It lists the key content returned (marker path, hierarchy, timings, uncertainty bounds, paired event ids), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_gpu_trace_ranges and list_gpu_trace_timeline_events.

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 implies a usage context: you would use this to retrieve marker ranges for scoping PC-sampling analysis. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like list_gpu_trace_ranges or list_gpu_trace_timeline_events, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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