extract_pyperf

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

The description does not disclose side effects, whether an extraction artifact is created, permission requirements, or behavior beyond 'Extract'. Annotations do not clarify much: readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint are all false, so the agent gains little behavioral certainty from them.

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 filler. Every word contributes meaning, though 'public' is somewhat ambiguous; overall it is appropriately compact for a one-parameter tool.

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 output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described, and run_id is the only required parameter. However, the description leaves the meaning of 'public' unclear and provides no context for selecting pyperf evidence extraction over sibling extractors, making it minimally viable but incomplete.

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 phrase 'pyperf run'. Since run_id is the sole required parameter, the description should at least clarify what value it expects, where it comes from, or how it relates to the evidence being extracted.

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'), a specific resource ('public pyperf'), and the kinds of evidence involved ('run, warmup, loop, and value'). This is clear enough to distinguish from sibling extraction tools by name and scope, though it does not explicitly contrast with any alternative.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling extract_* tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or when not to use it. The phrase 'public pyperf' weakly implies a use case, but the description leaves the decision to inference.

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