Analyze capture

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context with 'bounded' and 'static', indicating no GPU execution or side effects, and notes that the output includes 'explicit limitations,' which tells the agent the tool is conservative about its own completeness.

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 dense sentence with a colon-separated list. It is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, but the long list of output categories makes it slightly harder to parse. Still, every phrase contributes meaning and there is no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of analysis categories is helpful for setting expectations. However, it does not specify the return format or what 'explicit limitations' means concretely. Given the tool's moderate complexity and helpful annotations, the description is reasonably complete but leaves some ambiguity.

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 schema describes capture_path but not top_count; top_count only has min/max/default constraints. The description's mention of 'top calls' indirectly hints at the top_count parameter, but it does not explicitly explain how the parameter shapes the output. With 50% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.

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 ('Build') and resource ('bounded static analysis from Nsight metadata, API event names, and object identities') and enumerates concrete output categories like 'stream shape, top calls, thread distribution, resource population, compatibility/security findings.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools such as 'inspect_capture' or 'list_capture_resources', which focus on raw inspection or listing.

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 phrase 'bounded static analysis' implies a lightweight, non-dynamic analysis, and the tool's scope is clear. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'profile_capture' or 'analyze_gpu_trace_pc_sampling', and no exclusions are mentioned.

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