Evac get results

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real value: it explicitly states it never returns raw trajectories, defines the detail modes, and caps agents at limit ≤ 500.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and dense with useful specifics in a single sentence; the long parenthetical on per-exit metrics is information-rich rather than filler, though the sentence is on the verge of being run-on.

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 compensates by enumerating the return fields and detail modes, and annotations cover the safety profile. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, missing only explicit guidance on alternatives among the numerous sibling result tools.

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 carry the load, and it does: 'detail = summary (default) | exits | agents' explains each enum value and the default, and the limit ≤ 500 constraint is stated for the agents mode. The exact meaning of limit in other modes is left implicit.

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 ('Summary of the last evacuation result in the project') and enumerates the exact metrics returned, so an agent knows precisely what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling result tools such as evac_status, fire_results_summary, or the other *_get_results tools.

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?

Usage is only implied — 'the last evacuation result' suggests calling it after a run, and the 'Read-only' note plus the embedded rule references hint at context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use or named alternative (e.g. evac_status vs fire_results_summary).

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