results_inner_values

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool returns arrays of indices and values, implying it is a read operation, but it does not explicitly disclose whether it modifies state, requires authentication, or has other behavioral traits.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses a clear docstring format with Args and Returns sections, adding no extraneous information.

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 explains the return value but does not clarify what 'inner' means relative to 'outer', nor does it cover potential prerequisites or the relationship to sibling tools like 'results_evaluate'. Given the low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), it is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 coverage is 0% and the description adds default values (e.g., 'default dataset', 'current model') that are not in the schema, providing some context. However, it does not elaborate on allowed values or constraints beyond the simple statements.

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 'Get inner solution indices and values (time steps in time-dependent study)', specifying the verb, resource, and context. It hints at distinction from 'results_outer_values' by using 'inner', but does not explicitly differentiate from other results tools like 'results_evaluate'.

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. The context mentions time-dependent studies, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of related sibling tools such as 'results_outer_values'.

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