Parse result table

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the trailing 'Read-only' largely restates it. The description does add one genuine behavioral trait: optional expected-value checking against the trace, though the mismatch-is-reported-not-thrown detail lives in the schema rather than here.

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 dense sentence with the core action, the input artifact and the output shape front-loaded, plus a two-word safety tag. No filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by characterizing the return value as a time-indexed trace of inputs, outputs and buried nodes. It omits error behavior for a missing or malformed .tbl file and the interaction between full and limit, which is a minor gap given full schema coverage.

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 every parameter including the nested expect object and tolerance already carries its own documentation; the baseline is 3. The description only echoes this by mentioning 'optional expected-value checking' and adds no formatting or resolution detail beyond the schema.

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 verb (Parse) and resource (MAX+PLUS II Simulator result table, .tbl) and describes the shape of the result: a time-indexed trace of inputs, outputs and buried nodes. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like parse_report and project_parse_file, which target different artifacts.

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 file-type scoping ('an existing ... result table (.tbl)') implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over parse_report, project_parse_file, or simulate_and_verify, and no stated prerequisites such as a completed simulation run.

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