pix_get_gpu_frames

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so no side-effect disclosure is needed. The description adds valuable behavioral context about the row content and the meaning of timestamps and wait points, going beyond what the annotations provide. There is 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core definition, then expands on why the frame-pacing view is useful. The last sentence about block_on_fence and wait_on_swapchain is somewhat niche but contributes to interpreting the timeline.

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 is strong for tool selection and output interpretation, but it omits how to constrain the query and what the six parameters mean. An output schema exists, which mitigates return-value uncertainty, but invocation guidance remains thin.

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%, and the description provides no parameter-level guidance. It does not explain capture_id, limit, start_time, end_time, cursor_position, or timeout_seconds, leaving an agent to infer all argument semantics from names alone.

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 clearly identifies the resource as 'The present timeline: one row per frame, from the Present call to the flip' and calls it 'the frame-pacing view', which distinguishes it from GPU-timeline tools. However, it does not use an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'gets', so the action is carried mostly by the tool name.

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 explains when this tool is the right choice: it is the frame-pacing view and the reason to take a timing capture rather than a GPU one, especially for attributing stutters to a stage in the present-to-flip chain. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool or state 'use X instead', so it stops short of a 5.

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