pix_get_root_signature

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful scope information about what is not included ('without the bound-view detail'), but it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as failure modes, prerequisites, or queue/timeout behavior.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The core meaning is front-loaded, and the clarifying sibling comparison earns its place.

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 an output schema and safety annotations present, the description is adequate for choosing the tool, but it is thin for invocation details. It does not explain how to determine the right capture, event, queue, or timeout, leaving the agent to infer parameter semantics from names alone.

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. The event-centric phrasing hints that event_index is central, but capture_id, queue_id, and timeout_seconds are left completely unexplained beyond their names.

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 exactly what the tool returns: the root signature bound at a given event, explicitly excluding bound-view detail. It also distinguishes itself from pix_get_pipeline_state, making the tool's scope clear relative to a closely named sibling.

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 explicitly names pix_get_pipeline_state as the broader alternative and states this tool is the narrower choice 'for when only the binding layout matters.' This gives an agent a clear decision rule for selecting this tool.

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