extract_compute_sanitizer

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

The annotations provide no safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, all hints false), and the description does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or output behavior. The word 'extract' suggests a read operation but the annotations contradict that implication, yet the description doesn't clarify the discrepancy or the meaning of 'bounded findings'.

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 sentence with no redundancy, making it highly concise. However, the use of 'bounded' without definition is a minor clarity issue, though not a structural problem.

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?

With one parameter and no parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse to fully support the agent. It lacks information about what 'bounded' means, when to use it, and any behavioral expectations, despite having an output schema.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage for run_id, and the description does not mention the parameter at all. The parameter is only self-explanatory through its name, leaving the agent to guess what a 'run' refers to in this context.

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 extracting findings from a Compute Sanitizer XML report, which distinguishes it from sibling extract tools for other formats. However, the term 'bounded findings' is ambiguous without further explanation, slightly reducing clarity.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other extract_* tools, nor any exclusions. The source ('official Compute Sanitizer XML report') implies its usage context, but that is indirect.

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