pix_get_resource_views

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail about response contents: each view carries its descriptor, and each binding names the event and the reach path (root parameter, bindless heap, API argument). 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 text is compact and front-loaded, with the core concept in the first line and a clarifying explanation afterward. The first sentence is a fragment and some terminology is dense, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With annotations and an output schema, the safety profile and return values are largely covered. The main gap is invocation: 0% parameter documentation and no discussion of pagination or the include_bindings toggle, so an agent would have to guess at parameter semantics.

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 needed to map parameters like index, include_bindings, limit, and cursor_position to their roles. It does not. It provides domain context about views and bindings but never explains how the six input parameters control the query.

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 names a specific operation and object: retrieving every view of one resource plus the events that bind it. It goes beyond the tool name by explaining the practical question it answers ('where is this texture actually used, and as what') and by detailing descriptor and binding information.

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 'This answers...' line supplies a clear use case: choose this tool when you need to know where a resource is used and in what form. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools such as pix_get_resource or pix_list_resources or state when not to use it.

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