extract_pytest

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

The description says 'Extract' which conventionally implies a read-only operation, but the annotations specify readOnlyHint=false, indicating the tool is not read-only. This contradiction is not explained in the description, and no other behavioral details (e.g., side effects, auth requirements) are disclosed.

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 sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. It lists the evidence types without unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given a simple one-parameter schema and an output schema, the description is somewhat adequate but lacks usage context, behavioral transparency, and an explanation of how the evidence types relate to run_id. It also does not help with selection among the many sibling extract_* tools.

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?

The sole parameter run_id is not mentioned in the description, and the input schema provides no description (0% coverage). The description does not clarify what the run_id represents or how it is used to extract the listed evidence.

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 pytest-specific evidence types (phase, fixture, worker, outcome, failure-latency), using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from other extract_* siblings that target different data sources (e.g., extract_perfetto, extract_python_startup).

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 does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or situations where another extractor would be more appropriate.

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