pix_get_capture_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the open-capture prerequisite and the fact that it returns aggregated statistics; it doesn't disclose refresh, queue_name, or timeout behavior. 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?

Single sentence, 10 words, front-loaded with the primary action and object. No filler or redundant content.

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?

While an output schema exists, the four parameters lack any description and the sibling set is large. An agent cannot determine the meaning of refresh, queue_name, or timeout_seconds, nor when this tool is preferable to related summary/frame/event tools, making the definition insufficient for correct autonomous 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain the parameters, but it only implies capture_id via 'an open GPU capture'. refresh, queue_name, and timeout_seconds are left completely unexplained.

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 the specific verb 'Return' and names the resource 'frame, event, and category statistics' for an open GPU capture. This identifies the tool's subject matter and distinguishes it from siblings that focus on individual frames or events, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 phrase 'for an open GPU capture' implies a prerequisite, but the description does not explain when this overview should be selected over related tools like pix_get_timing_summary or pix_get_gpu_frames. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative routing.

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