extract_perfetto

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, yet the description does not clarify whether the tool returns results directly, creates an extraction record, or requires later retrieval via get_extraction. It adds minor context by saying queries are 'versioned' and the processor is 'local', but it omits any side effects, asynchrony, or setup implications.

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 concise sentence and front-loads the core action. The phrasing is economical, though terms like 'versioned curated queries' are jargon-heavy and could be simplified without losing content.

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 tool with extraction-like behavior and a sibling get_extraction, the description is too sparse to support correct invocation: it does not explain what inputs mean, whether output is synchronous, or how this relates to other extraction and retrieval tools. An output schema exists, so return structure is less of a gap, but overall usability remains weak.

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%, so the description carried the full burden of explaining run_id and artifact_id. It mentions neither parameter, leaving the agent to infer meaning only from the parameter names and titles 'Run Id' and 'Artifact Id'. This is insufficient, especially for artifact_id's nullable default behavior.

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 and resource: 'Run versioned curated queries through a configured local Trace Processor.' Combined with the name 'extract_perfetto', it is reasonably clear this extracts Perfetto trace data via a local processor, distinguishing it from extraction tools for other profilers. However, 'versioned curated queries' is somewhat vague about what data is produced.

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 given about when to use this tool versus sibling extract_* tools or get_extraction. The mention of 'configured local Trace Processor' hints at a prerequisite but does not explicitly explain setup requirements, nor does it name alternatives or exclusion cases.

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