Nsight Graphics status

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

Annotations already declare it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about locating a specific executable and reporting version/cache status, but it does not disclose potential edge cases (e.g., what happens if the executable is not found) or what 'MCP cache status' entails. It aligns with annotations without contradictions.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and clearly states what will be reported. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool is a simple status checker with no parameters and strong annotations, the description adequately covers its function and expected output (version and cache status). However, it lacks detail on the return format or what the cache status represents, which would be more helpful if no output schema is provided.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameters to clarify. Per the guidelines, a zero-parameter tool earns a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter-level 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: locating the local ngfx-replay executable and reporting its version and MCP cache status. It uses specific verbs ('locate', 'report') and a specific resource, distinguishing it clearly from sibling tools that focus on capture analysis.

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 this tool is for checking the local Nsight Graphics installation and cache status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the many sibling analysis tools, nor does it mention any alternatives or exclusions. It relies on the reader to infer that it is a preliminary health/status check.

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