extract_benchmark_samples

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

All safety-related annotations are false, so the description must carry the burden of explaining side effects and behavior. It adds 'raw' and 'explicit timing semantics' but does not disclose whether extraction mutates state, requires prior artifacts, or behaves differently across runs; this is a significant transparency gap for a non-readOnly operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is concise and structurally clean. However, the closing qualifier 'with explicit timing semantics' is vague and could have been used to provide more substantive information.

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 shape is not the main concern, but the description fails to explain prerequisites, what run_id selects, when to prefer this over sibling extractors, or what side effects may occur. In a sibling set this large, the description alone is not enough for confident tool selection.

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 mention run_id at all. The schema only states that run_id is a required string up to 200 characters, so neither source clarifies what kind of run identifier is expected or how it maps to benchmark samples. The parameter name is mildly self-explanatory, but the description adds no real semantic value.

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 uses a concrete verb ('extract') and names a specific resource ('raw accelerator benchmark samples'), adding 'explicit timing semantics' as a qualifier. It is reasonably distinguishable at a glance from the many other extract_* siblings, though it does not explain what makes benchmark samples distinct from nvbench or nsight_compute extraction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the large set of sibling extraction tools such as extract_nvbench, extract_observations, or extract_inference_trace. The phrase 'accelerator benchmark samples' implies a benchmarking context, but no prerequisite, exclusion, or selection rule is stated.

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