pix_list_resources

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the result covers 'every texture and buffer the frame touched,' includes 'the debug name the application set,' and produces indexes usable with specific sibling tools. This gives the agent a concrete model of what the call returns.

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: the first sentence states the action and outputs, the second adds the resource-table context and downstream workflow. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of annotation fields.

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?

An output schema is present, so not explaining the full return shape is acceptable. The description covers purpose, main filter, and next steps well. The only real gap is that optional pagination parameters such as limit and cursor_position are not connected to how the resource list is paged, which an autonomous agent might need for very large captures.

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 must compensate. It explains the capture context and explicitly calls out name_contains filtering, and it implies the output entries are indexable. However, limit, cursor_position, and timeout_seconds are left entirely to their parameter titles, with no guidance on pagination or timeout behavior.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'List the D3D12 resources in a capture with their dimensions and formats.' It goes further to describe the resource table and connects to downstream tools by telling the agent to pass an entry's index to pix_get_resource or pix_get_resource_views, which differentiates it from those sibling tools.

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 clear context: use this tool to see every texture and buffer in the capture, filter with name_contains, and then use the resulting index to fetch details from pix_get_resource or pix_get_resource_views. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name exclusion conditions, but the workflow is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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