Get Mechanical Result

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

The description adds the behavior 'optionally create and evaluate one,' which is more specific than the annotation readOnlyHint=false. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, such as triggering a solve or modifying the state, which would be valuable for a tool with a false readOnlyHint.

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 no redundancy, making it concise and front-loaded. It could be longer to add useful context, but the structure itself is efficient.

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 an output schema (not shown) and a non-read-only annotation, the description is too sparse. It omits when to use, parameter details, and behavioral consequences. A more complete description would address the 'create and evaluate' flow and expected outputs.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only indirectly alludes to the create_if_missing parameter via 'optionally create and evaluate one.' It does not explain result_type or analysis_index, leaving the parameters to be interpreted solely from schema titles and enums.

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's core function: 'Read an existing result or optionally create and evaluate one.' This specifies a verb and resource, and the distinction from sibling tools like mechanical_solve is implicit but not explicit. It could be clearer about the nature of 'results' but the input schema helps.

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 is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a solved analysis, or when to prefer other tools like mechanical_solve. The description gives no context for choosing this tool.

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