List GPU Trace shader pipelines

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 meaningful context beyond these annotations, including pagination ('Page through'), joining with raw PC samples and exported metrics, and the return of an explicitly named estimate as fallback/comparison. This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 with a dense, information-rich first sentence listing many output fields. It is front-loaded with the action and the second sentence adds the estimate fallback. While efficient, the first sentence is a long run-on that could be broken up for readability.

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, the description does list many returned data fields, which helps. However, it does not explain the pagination response structure, the exact nature of the 'explicitly named estimate,' or the meanings of several key parameters. Given the tool's complexity and low schema coverage, the description leaves notable gaps.

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 25%, with only report_id and debug_blob having descriptions. The tool description does not compensate for this by explaining parameters like kind, sort_by, shader_regex, or include_inactive. It only hints at pagination with 'Page through,' leaving most parameter semantics undocumented.

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 pages through shader pipeline data decoded from a binary report and lists specific output fields such as pipeline type/name, shader stage/hash, and sample counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_gpu_trace_shader_occupancy and list_gpu_trace_shader_objects by focusing on pipelines with detailed joined data.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (when shader pipeline data with sample counts and shader details is needed) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. It implies usage through the detailed data description but lacks a when-not-to-use comparison.

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