extract_node_heap_prof

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

All annotations are false (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so they convey no affirmative safety profile and the description carries the disclosure burden. The qualifier 'bounded' hints at scope limits but never explains what bounds apply, nor whether extraction requires a pre-existing heap dump or produces new artifacts.

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?

A single ten-word sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place; the brevity problem is one of substance, which is penalized under other dimensions, not struture.

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?

Even though an output schema exists and only one parameter is required, essential context is left unexplained: the meaning of 'bounded evidence', the provenance of the heap profile, and how run_id maps to it. Given nearly twenty sibling extract_* tools, an agent needs more to confidently select and call this one.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions run_id, so it does not compensate for the low coverage. The parameter is only partially recoverable because its name and title ('Run Id') are self-evident, but the description does not clarify that run_id selects the run whose heap profile should be extracted.

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 uses a specific verb ('Extract') and a clear resource ('bounded evidence from a Node/V8 sampling heap profile'). The resource noun distinguishes it from sibling extractors like extract_node_cpu_prof, extract_memray, and extract_perfetto by naming the exact profile type, though it does not explicitly call out that differentiation.

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 the many sibling extraction tools (extract_node_cpu_prof, extract_memray, extract_perfetto, etc.). There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing anywhere in the description.

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