nexus_get_results

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: counts are capped at --max-outcomes, truncation is reported via total_outcomes/omitted_outcomes/omitted_shots, and multi-circuit jobs return one entry per circuit in submission order. This enriches the read-only/idempotent annotation without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by concise details about capping and multi-circuit behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no waste.

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?

The description covers key behaviors like capping, truncation reporting, and batch ordering. It does not specify behavior for invalid or non-completed jobs, but the presence of an output schema likely fills return-value gaps, making this reasonably complete.

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 only parameter is job_id, which is a string per the schema. The description merely says 'by id', adding no meaningful semantic beyond the parameter name and schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should have compensated but does not.

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 returns measurement counts for a completed job by id, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like nexus_job_status (status) and nexus_job_cost (cost) by focusing on measurement counts.

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 implies usage for completed jobs to retrieve measurement counts, providing clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is distinct enough among the sibling tools.

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