Read the output quantities

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description does add that it reports what the NEXT run will write (not current results) and that movie_replay indicates replayability in IPGMovie, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose behavior about wildcards in names or how results are returned when the tool has an output schema.

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, somewhat run-on sentence with awkward nesting ('What a finished result file holds: ...'). It is front-loaded with the core subject, but the trailing reference to cm_results_summary is syntactically disjoint and would benefit from clearer punctuation.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return fields, which is appropriate. But for a no-arg, openWorld-disabled read tool, it leaves gaps: what 'storage rate' means in context, how wildcards behave, and the relationship to cm_output_quantities_edit are not explained. It is minimally complete but not thorough.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on return content rather than parameter semantics, which is appropriate for a no-arg introspection tool.

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 reads 'the quantities the next run writes to its result file' but never states a clear verb or that this is a read operation. It is distinguishable from cm_output_quantities_edit only loosely, and the 'movie_replay' field mention muddies what the tool actually returns. Purpose is inferable but not stated crisply.

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 use this tool versus siblings like cm_results_summary or cm_results_read. The only routing evidence is a trailing pointer to cm_results_summary for finished files, which is a contrast but not an explicit usage condition. An agent gets no 'use this when...' clause.

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