extract_compute_sanitizer

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

Annotations are all false, so they provide no meaningful signals. The description says 'Extract' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose whether the tool stores results, modifies state, requires external file access, or has other side effects. With no annotation support, the description carries the full burden but only gives the bare action, omitting any behavioral context beyond the verb.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and source, making it efficient and easy to scan. There is zero redundancy.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what 'bounded findings' means, what run_id refers to, or any expected inputs or outcomes. While the output schema might define return structure, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 one parameter, run_id, with zero description coverage. The tool description does not mention run_id at all, leaving the agent to guess what it represents (e.g., a report ID, file path, or run identifier). The description provides no value over the raw schema and fails to compensate for the 0% coverage.

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 ('Extract'), a resource ('bounded findings'), and a precise source ('official Compute Sanitizer XML report'). It clearly differentiates this tool from sibling extract_* tools (e.g., extract_pytest, extract_memray) by naming the exact report format. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of conditions that would make this the right choice. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer when to call it.

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