result_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the incremental/full modes, including that full 'may repeat content' and is 'clearly marked,' which goes beyond the structured metadata.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the mode distinction is stated efficiently without repeating schema 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?

Annotations and the presence of an output schema lower the burden on the description, and the mode semantics are covered. However, the tool has three parameters with zero schema descriptions, and the description only partially explains them, so an agent may not know how to obtain or populate output_ref or how max_chars affects 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the three undocumented parameters. It explains the mode values (incremental vs. full), but it does not clarify output_ref semantics or max_chars behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to construct correct arguments.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Read a cached tool result without rerunning it.' It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like shared_read, so it falls short of a 5, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool—when a cached result exists and rerunning is undesirable—but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like shared_read, nor does it describe exclusions or prerequisites. This leaves the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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