extract_nvbench

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden. The description only mentions a bundle constraint, not behavioral aspects like side effects, idempotency, or error behavior. It does not disclose whether extraction is read-only or if it modifies anything, despite the readOnlyHint being false.

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 concise, with the main purpose in the first sentence and an important constraint in the second. No wasted words, and the structure is front-loaded. However, it could benefit from a bit more detail on parameters or usage.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key constraint. But it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, leaving the agent uncertain about when to invoke it and what side effects to expect. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 explain run_id beyond the schema's title 'Run Id'. With a single simple parameter, the description should at least confirm how run_id is used, but it does not, leaving the parameter semantically underspecified.

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's action ('Extract'), specific resource ('NVBench sample times and frequencies'), and source ('preserved bundle'). This distinguishes it from siblings like extract_benchmark_samples and import_nvbench, which have different scopes.

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 implies usage by stating a prerequisite ('must contain exactly one primary NVBench JSON artifact'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. It provides a condition for use but not comparative guidance.

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