picus_get_latest_run_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool returns results and has the same shape as another tool, which gives some behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, nor does it discuss potential errors, authentication, or other side effects. The transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 consists of two short sentences. The first states the purpose, and the second provides comparison and use case. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, compares it to a sibling, and gives a usage hint. It could have briefly mentioned what the result structure looks like, but the reference to 'same shape as picus_get_run_result' provides some context if the agent is familiar with that tool.

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 has one required parameter 'simulation_id' with no description in the schema itself (0% coverage). The tool description does not add any information about what this parameter means or how to obtain it. While the parameter name and title are somewhat self-explanatory, the description misses an opportunity to provide necessary context.

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 that the tool retrieves prevention and detection results for the most recent run of a simulation. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'picus_get_run_result' by noting they have the same shape and by providing a use case for when to choose this one over the other.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Convenient when you don't have a specific run id.' It also implicitly compares it to 'picus_get_run_result' by saying it has the same shape, giving the agent a clear alternative. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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