pix_get_allocation_moves

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context: migration records whether the move worked, demotion is permanent, results are time-ordered, and empty results are normal for titles within budget. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded with the core subject and each paragraph adds useful context: the concept, the sibling relationship, kind behavior, and expected results. The PCIe analogy is slightly elaborate but supports understanding of why demotion is costly.

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 domain semantics are well covered, including the meaning of migration vs. demotion, kind filtering, time ordering, and the normal empty result. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not the description's burden. Optional parameter semantics remain somewhat thin, but the core invocation guidance is sufficient.

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 carries the burden for parameter meaning. It meaningfully explains kind and its omission behavior, but the other six parameters, including limit, start_time, end_time, cursor_position, timeout_seconds, and capture_id, receive no semantic explanation beyond their names in the schema.

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 states a specific resource and operation: allocation moves between heaps or demotions out of video memory. It also explicitly positions this tool as 'the other half of pix_get_residency_operations,' making the distinction from a key sibling unambiguous.

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?

It names pix_get_residency_operations and contrasts residency vs. migration/demotion. It also gives clear selection guidance for the kind parameter, states the default behavior when kind is omitted, and sets the expectation that an empty result is normal.

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