pix_export_to_cpp

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

Annotations already indicate idempotence, non-read-only, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a useful licensing caveat for use_winpixeventruntime and use_agility_sdk, but does not explain side effects like output directory creation, overwrite behavior, or what 'force' affects.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence is compact but somewhat awkwardly formatted; overall, there is no wasted wording.

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?

This is a complex export tool with seven parameters and no schema-level descriptions, yet the description covers only the purpose and two license-related flags. Missing context includes force, timeout, replay-time execute-indirect buffers, and output directory semantics. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the documentation is still insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains two of the seven parameters (use_winpixeventruntime and use_agility_sdk) and leaves capture_id, output_directory, force, timeout_seconds, and use_replay_time_executeindirect_buffers 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 uses a specific verb ('Export'), a clear resource ('captured frame'), and a distinct deliverable ('standalone C++ D3D12 project'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like pix_save_screenshot or pix_export_event_list.

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 intended use case is clear: export a captured frame as a standalone C++ D3D12 project. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose statement provides enough context for an agent to select this tool for that specific task.

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