pix_list_timing_processes

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

Annotations only declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: captures are machine-wide, only the attached PIX process is sampled, ordering is busiest-first, and sampled=false semantics are explained. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious runtime behavior an agent needs.

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, front-loads the core result, and each sentence adds meaningful context. The machine-wide caveat, the sampled-process explanation, and the sampled=false note all earn their place without unnecessary filler.

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 on interpreting results and understanding the machine-wide capture behavior, and an output schema exists so return shape details are covered. However, with five input parameters and zero schema descriptions, the lack of any parameter usage guidance leaves an agent guessing about filtering, pagination, and timeout behavior.

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 does not explain any of the five input parameters (limit, name_contains, cursor_position, timeout_seconds, capture_id). The description focuses on output semantics rather than parameter meaning, so it does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool as listing every process alive during a timing capture, ordered busiest first. It specifies the resource (processes) and distinguishes this from sibling thread/GPU/queue listing tools without needing the schema.

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 provides helpful interpretation guidance (first entry is the attached PIX process, rest are context) but does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pix_list_timing_threads or pix_list_timing_gpu_queues. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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