Replay a PIX capture to collect GPU occupancy metrics, enabling analysis of shader utilization and resource efficiency.
Replay the capture collecting GPU occupancy data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| capture_id | Yes | ||
| timeout_seconds | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 a 'replay' behavior but does not disclose what replay implies operationally, such as whether it requires an open capture or may take significant time. It does not contradict the 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 a single, short sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, but it is so brief that it sacrifices useful detail.
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 is simple: two params, one required, with an output schema and safety annotations. However, the description omits practical context such as the need for an open capture, how this relates to sibling capture-collection tools, and what 'replay' means operationally. It is minimally adequate but leaves several 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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only mentions 'the capture' indirectly and says nothing about timeout_seconds, its units, default behavior, or why someone might set it. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory but that is not enough given the complete absence of parameter documentation.
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 uses a specific action ('Replay') with a clear resource ('the capture') and outcome ('collecting GPU occupancy data'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying GPU occupancy, though it does not explicitly contrast with tools like pix_collect_counters.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pix_collect_counters or timing-related tools. It does not mention prerequisites like having a capture open, nor does it state that this should be used specifically for occupancy analysis rather than other data collection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.