invariance_eval_run_results

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about the result structure (scores per-scorer in 0..1, pass/fail) and pagination, but does not go beyond that. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the result structure. Every word earns its place; 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?

For a simple read-only paginated listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned fields and pagination. It doesn't mention error handling or edge cases, but annotations (readOnly, openWorld) and the schema's cursor documentation fill most gaps. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 low (33%); only 'cursor' has a schema description. The description adds the pagination context and the meaning of 'id' (eval run) implicitly, and the 'limit' is left to the schema's max 200. It partially compensates for the gap but doesn't explicitly define each parameter's role beyond what the name implies.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('per-case results for an eval run'), and explicitly enumerates the fields returned (output, expected, scores 0..1, pass/fail). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like invariance_eval_run_get (which likely returns run-level metadata) and invariance_eval_case_list (which lists cases of a dataset).

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 description makes clear this tool lists detailed per-case results for a given eval run, and mentions pagination. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., run summary via invariance_eval_run_get) or when not to use it. The context is clear but without exclusion guidance.

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