extract_kernel_validation

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description implies a read operation ('Extract') but does not confirm read-only behavior, side effects, permissions, or cost. It also does not clarify what 'bounded' means in terms of output limits or side effects.

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 concise (a single sentence) with no fluff, which scores well on brevity. However, it is under-specified—critical information like the parameter semantics and usage context is omitted, so it is not appropriately sized for the missing 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?

Given the many sibling extract tools and a single required parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the distinction from other extract tools, clarify 'bounded per-case metrics', or address parameter semantics. The output schema exists but is not shown, so we cannot rely on it to fill gaps.

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?

With a schema description coverage of 0%, the description must compensate, but it does not mention the single parameter 'run_id' at all. It adds no explanation of what run_id refers to, its format, or how it relates to 'kernel-validation evidence', leaving the agent uninformed.

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 ('kernel-validation evidence'), and a qualifier ('bounded per-case metrics'), which clearly distinguishes it from other extract_* tools targeting different evidence types. It is not a tautology and communicates a distinct purpose, though 'bounded per-case metrics' is somewhat vague about what exactly is extracted.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling extract_* tools or when to avoid it. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to rely on the name and schema alone.

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