extract_memray

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

Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness; the description adds that the operation is durable and asynchronous by pointing at an operation ID and polling flow. This is useful beyond annotations, though it doesn't spell out resource cost or cleanup.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded verb and resource, with a concrete follow-up instruction. No filler.

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 durable async start command, it supplies the critical next step (poll get_extraction) and notes durability; output schema and annotations cover return and safety profile. The optional threshold semantics remain under-specified, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 has 0% description coverage and the description gives no parameter guidance. run_id and idempotency_key are inferable from names, but temporary_allocation_threshold's meaning and units are left undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific action ('Start durable Memray extraction') on a specific resource and names the follow-up get_extraction. This clearly distinguishes it from the many extract_* siblings by tool name and operation pattern.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to poll get_extraction with the operation ID after starting, which is clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly state when to prefer extract_memray over other extract_* tools, but the resource-specific name plus visible siblings makes the selection reasonably clear.

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