pix_discover_queues

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 goes well beyond that by revealing two distinct operational modes (with the analysis bridge vs. fallback probing), the cost of misses, and per-capture result caching. This is exactly the kind of behavioral detail an agent needs.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, and the second sentence packs meaningful operational detail without filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 description covers the core task, bridge dependency, fallback behavior, and caching well, and an output schema exists so return values do not need to be documented. Still, it leaves uncertainty about optional parameters and does not position the tool against the similarly named sibling pix_list_queues, so it is not fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does explain candidate_names through the fallback probing behavior and capture_id through per-capture caching. However, it leaves timeout_seconds unexplained and does not clarify what happens when candidate_names is null while no bridge is available.

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 first sentence clearly states a specific action and resource: find which named contexts/command queues a capture exposes. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like pix_list_queues or pix_list_timing_gpu_queues.

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 conveys clear context for when this would be used: to discover queue names in a capture, especially when no other command lists queues. However, it never explicitly says when not to use it or names alternatives, so the usage guidance is mostly implied rather than stated.

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