Chainsaw: page a result

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

With annotations already declaring readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: the same tool returns structurally different rows depending on whether the handle came from a hunt, search, or dump, and it exposes the pagination contract (next_offset until null), which is not documented anywhere in the input schema.

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 short sentences plus a lead clause, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The pagination instruction and the row-type caveat are each independently useful and earn their place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must hint at the return shape; it does so by naming next_offset and the terminal condition. It still doesn't describe the overall response envelope (rows plus metadata), which leaves a small gap for an agent consuming the result, but the critical pagination detail is present.

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 (limit, where, fields, handle, offset, max_bytes) is already documented in the schema itself, including the filter matching semantics. The description only alludes to projection and filtering generically ('optionally projected and filtered') without adding syntax or behavior beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Read a page of rows from a stored result') plus the projection/filter capability. It clarifies what the rows contain (hunt detections vs raw search/dump documents), which helps orient the agent. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like chainsaw_result_chunk or chainsaw_result_events.

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 gives operative pagination guidance ('Iterate with next_offset until it is null'), which tells the agent how to consume the tool. It stops short of saying when to pick this over chainsaw_result_chunk, chainsaw_result_events, or chainsaw_result_summary, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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