Open an existing GPU Trace export

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

The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: it explicitly states 'without replaying the capture', requires specific files (FRAME.xls and GPUTRACE_FRAME.xls), and mentions registering a queryable session. These details are not available from the annotations and are valuable for setting expectations.

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 two concise sentences: one states the operation and key benefit, the other states the precondition. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter tool with strong annotations, the description covers the operation, prerequisites, and a key behavioral trait (no replay). The only minor gap is that it doesn't state what the tool returns, but given the absence of an output schema and the simple nature of the tool, this is acceptable.

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 already provides a complete description of export_path (100% coverage). The description complements this by clarifying the required directory contents, which adds meaningful context about what the path should point to and how to validate it.

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 ('Open'), names the resource ('existing Nsight GPU Trace auto-export directory'), and explains the outcome ('register it as a queryable report session without replaying the capture'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_gpu_trace_reports or analyze_capture.

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?

It provides clear context: use this for an existing export that you want to query without replaying the capture. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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