extract_inference_trace

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

Annotations place readOnlyHint=false, indicating possible side effects, yet the description provides no behavioral details about what 'bounded' means, whether it mutates state, or what permissions are needed. Since annotations are all false and no extra context is given, the description fails to disclose important operational traits beyond the verb 'Extract'.

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, which is concise. However, it is under-specified and cryptic; it does not front-load key information about usage or parameters. It is not a well-structured description despite its brevity.

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?

Given the tool's one parameter, no output schema details, and sparse description, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'bounded prompt-free' implies for the result, nor does it describe return values (despite an output schema being present). The agent lacks context to understand the output or prerequisites for invoking this 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?

The sole parameter 'run_id' is entirely undocumented in both the schema and description. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what 'run_id' refers to or how it relates to the extraction. The description offers no semantic value for the parameter, leaving the agent without enough information to fill it correctly.

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 specifies the action ('Extract') and the resource ('Mooncake request schedule evidence'), with constraints ('bounded prompt-free') that add specificity. It distinguishes itself from sibling extraction tools like extract_inference_result and extract_otlp_trace, though 'Mooncake' may be unclear outside a known context.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention the required run_id, prerequisites, or any context where this tool is preferred over sibling extractors. This lack of usage guidance makes it hard for an agent to choose correctly among many similar extraction tools.

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