pix_save_high_frequency_counters

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

Annotations mark readOnlyHint=false, so the description should disclose side effects, but it only says 'collect' and 'return sample rows' without explaining the save/ write behavior implied by the name and the destination parameter. The description adds the useful 'GPU-wide time series' context but omits what gets modified, written, or refreshed.

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 a single short sentence and front-loads the core purpose, but it is under-specified for a tool with nine parameters and several sibling tools. It lacks parameter semantics, side effects, and usage context, making it concise at the expense of necessary substance.

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 exists, so return-value detail is not strictly required, but the description still fails to provide enough context for correct invocation. It does not explain parameters, mention the save/destination behavior, or distinguish this tool from similar counter-related siblings, which is insufficient for a 9-parameter tool.

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 none of the nine parameters (limit, merge, cursor, refresh, counters, capture_id, destination, counter_regexes, timeout_seconds) are explained in the description. The description only names the resource and result, leaving all parameter semantics to be guessed.

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 a specific verb ('Collect') and a concrete resource ('High Frequency Counters' described as a GPU-wide time series), and it indicates the result ('return sample rows'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like pix_collect_counters or pix_list_counters, and the 'save' behavior implied by the tool name is not reflected in the description.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pix_collect_counters, pix_list_counters, or pix_list_timing_counters. Prerequisites like having an open capture or a valid capture_id are also not mentioned.

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