extract_python_startup

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

Annotations are all false and provide no safety or side-effect hints. The description does not disclose whether this operation is read-only, whether it modifies state, or what it returns. The verb 'Extract' suggests a read operation, but the annotations do not confirm this, creating ambiguity.

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 that is succinct and front-loaded. Every word adds meaning, with no filler or redundancy. It is an efficient and appropriately sized summary.

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 the tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context about the tool's place among many extraction tools. It does not explain what constitutes 'repeated startup' or how this evidence is used, leaving gaps for an AI agent deciding when to invoke it.

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 input schema has one parameter (run_id), but the description provides no explanation of it. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries no burden to compensate, and it fails to do so. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Extract') with a specific resource ('Python startup') and lists three concrete evidence types (repeated startup, peak RSS, package-grouped import). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling extraction tools like extract_pytest or extract_perfetto.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no preconditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools. The usage is only implied by the name and description, not stated explicitly.

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