List GPU Trace shader occupancy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it states the exact return contents (shader name/hash, aggregate warps/occupancy) and explicitly warns that the stage is heuristic, which goes 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 core action, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds meaningful detail without 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?

For a 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives a clear purpose and return value overview, but leaves out important parameter semantics and usage guidelines. It is adequate for simple listing use cases but incomplete for understanding filter behavior and alternatives.

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 29%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the 'full trace or one marker range' which clarifies range_id, but it does not explain limit/offset, shader_regex, include_inactive, or minimum_occupancy_percent. These filter and pagination parameters remain undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 a specific verb ('Page through') and a specific resource ('per-shader PC-sampler occupancy rows'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on occupancy data and the scope (full trace or one marker range). It also notes the return details, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for retrieving shader occupancy data, and mentions the optional marker range scope, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like list_gpu_trace_shader_pipelines or analyze_gpu_trace_pc_sampling. No 'when not to use' guidance is given, so usage context is only implied.

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