results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does add real value by enumerating the returned artifacts (decision, verdicts, objections, pricing, ROI projections, files), which is the only return-value documentation since no output schema exists. It says nothing about read-only nature, error behavior for an unfinished or missing run, or size/cost of the payload.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The tail is a dense comma list of return fields, which is efficient though slightly catalogue-like.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the enumerated field list is genuinely necessary and is the description's main contribution. However, for a retrieval tool with no annotations, it omits prerequisites, failure modes, and whether results are partial for an in-progress run.

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 100% and the schema already explains that 'run' is a run name under mirofish_runs or an absolute path. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource (results of a run) and enumerates what is inside it, but the verb is only implicit and there is no differentiation from siblings such as list_runs, job_status, or run_test. An agent can guess it retrieves a run's outcome, but must infer that from a noun phrase rather than a stated action.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus list_runs or job_status, and no prerequisites such as whether the run must be finished first. The only implicit guidance is the 'run' parameter name.

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