pix_get_command_lists

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description's added behavioral context is valuable rather than redundant. It explains the output semantics of execution_id, parallel_level, and the distinction between real parallelism and split submissions. It also discloses the empty-result case and its cause (capture without GPU timings), going well beyond the structured 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose before diving into semantics. The three short paragraphs each serve a distinct role: purpose, technical interpretation, and usage caveats. Minor grammatical awkwardness and a slightly dense concluding clause prevent a perfect score, but there is no fluff.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description adequately explains the tool's core return semantics, grouping behavior, and empty-result meaning. It also clarifies an important queue-selection default. However, it leaves time-range and pagination parameters to ambient inference and does not define how 'busiest queue' is determined, so it is not fully complete for all calling scenarios.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for the absence of parameter documentation. It only explains the queue_id parameter's omission behavior; the other six parameters (limit, end_time, start_time, cursor_position, capture_id, timeout_seconds) receive no explanation. Property names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not add meaningful semantics to most parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it lists the GPU queue command lists executed, grouped by submission. It further differentiates itself from pix_get_gpu_timeline by explicitly stating that the sibling reports named scopes while this tool reports which command lists carried them. That makes the tool's distinctive purpose 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?

The description gives a clear usage cue by contrasting with pix_get_gpu_timeline, telling an agent when the command-list perspective is needed. It also provides practical guidance on omitting queue_id to get the busiest queue and explains what an empty result means. It does not enumerate when not to use the tool or compare with other siblings such as pix_list_gpu_events, so it is just short of a full 5.

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