show_result

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile, and the description adds real context: it notes the viewer reads the payload from disk so full data never enters the agent's context, and that rendering only happens on supporting hosts. It does not describe error behavior if the path is stale or the host lacks viewer support.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action and rendering mode, then the data-flow rationale, then the charting condition, then the usage trigger. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information; only slightly verbose.

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?

No output schema, but the description explains the rendering outcomes (polar plot vs field table) well enough that an agent knows what to expect. With 3 nested/optional params, coverage is adequate though it could note what happens with the `data` param for unspilled results.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantics: `path` is tied to an earlier full_result, and `encoding` overrides the result's own `view` when both exist and is only needed when no view is present. This is decision-relevant information beyond the schema text.

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+resource (show a saved tool result to the user) plus the rendering modes (polar plot vs field table). The final sentence distinguishes it from the read/session siblings by framing it as a display action rather than a data-retrieval one.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ("when the user would rather see the data than read it") and implies the when-not by pointing to reading via its framing. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool (read/session_timeline) as the routing target, so it stops short of 5.

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