extract_nsight_systems

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

All annotations are false, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool extracts curated evidence; it does not mention whether the tool writes artifacts, mutates workspace state, or has other side effects, nor does it explain what 'curated' means operationally.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase ('extract', 'curated evidence', 'imported official Nsight Systems SQLite export') contributes selection-relevant meaning.

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?

The tool is low-complexity with one required parameter and has an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the source prerequisite and outcome, but it omits run_id semantics and explicit usage boundaries, making it minimally viable rather than fully complete.

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. The parameter name and source context imply it identifies the imported run/export, but the description adds no explicit meaning about how run_id is resolved to a specific SQLite export.

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'), resource ('Nsight Systems SQLite export'), and expected outcome ('curated evidence'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling extract tools such as extract_nsight_compute and extract_memray by naming the exact source format.

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 phrase 'imported official Nsight Systems SQLite export' implies the prerequisite and context for use, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The usage is inferable rather than directly guided.

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