Read time series from a result file

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

Annotations already declare this is a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false). The description adds one genuine behavioral trait beyond annotations: output is decimated to at most max_points samples. It does not state what happens to missing quantities or invalid windows, so it adds only modest value.

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 wasted words. It is efficient, though its terseness borders on under-specification rather than optimal information density.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the full 100% schema coverage relieves parameter documentation pressure. It is minimally adequate, but the absence of any when-to-use or windowing guidance leaves the definition thin for a multi-tool results workflow.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description reinforces the max_points decimation semantics but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema; 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?

States a specific resource (time series from a result file) with an action implied by the tool name 'read'. It is distinguishable from siblings like cm_results_summary or cm_results_list, though the description is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+object statement.

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 guidance on when to prefer this over cm_results_summary, cm_results_list, or cm_output_quantities, nor any prerequisite or context for its use. The agent must infer the appropriate scenario entirely from the name and schema.

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