pix_list_timing_gpu_queues

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 does not need to restate that. The description adds valuable behavioral context: event_count 0 means the queue was seen but never recorded doing work, usually due to the owning process not being captured. This goes well beyond what the schema or annotations convey.

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 two compact blocks with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the following sentences add the downstream integration and edge-case interpretation. Every sentence 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?

For a simple read-only listing tool with an output schema, the main behavior and the important event_count edge case are covered. The only meaningful gap is the unexplained timeout_seconds parameter and the lack of explicit guidance about when not to use this tool, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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, but it never mentions capture_id or timeout_seconds. The phrase 'this capture' implies capture_id, and timeout_seconds remains completely unexplained; an agent cannot tell what timeout applies to or how to set it correctly.

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 states the tool lists GPU queues observed in a capture, with per-queue work counts, and explicitly ties queue_id to pix_get_gpu_timeline. This is specific and actionable, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like pix_list_queues or pix_discover_queues.

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?

It provides clear context: queue_id from this tool feeds pix_get_gpu_timeline, and event_count 0 has a specific diagnostic meaning. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools, but the usage direction is strong enough for an agent to select it in a timing-capture workflow.

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