extract_nsight_compute

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

Annotations are all false and carry little signal, so the description bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that ncu_report must be installed, which is useful, but it does not disclose whether extraction modifies state, writes artifacts, requires permissions, or returns output in a particular format. No contradiction with annotations occurs.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and the interface used. It is appropriately concise, though it leans slightly under-specified for a tool with no parameter documentation.

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 a single required parameter, no parameter descriptions, and annotations that offer no safety or behavioral signal, the description is too minimal. It does not clarify what 'bounded metrics' means, what the expected run_id refers to, what the extraction produces, or how it relates to sibling analysis/extraction tools.

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 does not mention the run_id parameter or explain its meaning. The schema provides the title 'Run Id' and type, but the description adds no guidance on what kind of run is expected or how the ID relates to the ncu_report extraction.

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 a concrete action ('Extract'), a resource ('bounded metrics'), and a distinct mechanism ('NVIDIA's installed ncu_report interface'). This clearly identifies the tool's function and separates it from sibling tools like extract_nsight_systems or extract_memray, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Mentioning 'ncu_report interface' implies an Nsight Compute context, but it does not state when to choose extract_nsight_compute over analyze_nsight_compute or other extract_* tools, nor does it describe exclusions or prerequisites.

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