List GPU Trace marker ranges

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds pagination behavior and a note about the returned range_id being usable downstream, which is useful but does not reveal deeper behaviors like defaults or ordering.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and clearly stating the return value's utility. No wasted words 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?

The tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining filtering semantics and return structure. It only mentions the returned fields superficially and never clarifies how filters work, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it 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?

Schema description coverage is only 17% (only report_id is explained). The description fails to explain limit, offset, path_regex, maximum_depth, or minimum_duration_ms, leaving agents to infer filters from names alone. No attempt is made to compensate for the missing parameter details.

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?

Clearly states it pages through exported marker/regime ranges and lists key attributes like hierarchy, path, parent id, and duration. The resource is specific enough to distinguish from timeline-event tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named sibling list_gpu_trace_marker_ranges.

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?

Provides clear context that returned range_id can be used by metric, summary, and shader-occupancy tools, implying when to use this tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full guideline coverage.

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