extract_benchmark_samples

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

The phrase 'explicit timing semantics' provides a small hint about output behavior, but annotations are all false and the description does not disclose side effects, return format, permissions, or other important behavioral traits. Since the annotations do not cover safety or mutability, the description carries the burden but does not satisfy it.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Although the tool has only one parameter and an output schema exists, the description lacks essential context for distinguishing it from many similar extract_* tools. It does not explain what 'benchmark samples' are, how they relate to a run, or when to use this tool, so the description is not sufficient on its own.

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 the run_id parameter. While the parameter name and title are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to clarify what a 'run' refers to in this context or how run_id relates to benchmark samples.

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 action ('Extract') and the resource ('raw accelerator benchmark samples'), adding a notable qualifier about timing semantics. It distinguishes itself from siblings like extract_inference_trace, though it could more explicitly contrast with other benchmark-related extraction tools such as extract_nvbench or extract_nsight_compute.

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. With a long list of sibling extract_* tools, the description does not mention any exclusions, alternative tools, or specific scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name.

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