extract_nsight_systems

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

The description adds the precondition that the export must be 'imported,' and 'curated' suggests a filtering/processing behavior. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or mutation despite readOnlyHint being false, so the behavioral profile remains incomplete.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasteful words. It is concise but slightly under-specified, earning a high score for efficiency though not perfection.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered, but the description lacks usage guidance and parameter context. It does not help disambiguate from closely related tools like extract_nsight_compute, making the description incomplete for a tool in a large sibling family.

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 run_id at all. The sole parameter is left entirely to the schema's minimal 'Run Id' label, so the description adds no semantic value for the parameter.

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 clearly states the tool extracts 'curated evidence' from an 'imported official Nsight Systems SQLite export,' giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like extract_nsight_compute by explicitly naming Nsight Systems.

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 alternatives. It neither mentions the appropriate context nor excludes other extraction tools, leaving the agent without decision support.

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