Results detect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description merely restates 'Read-only.' It does add value by disclosing the concrete inventory content (slice quantities/planes, Plot3D times, Smoke3D, boundary and particle files), but says nothing about failure modes when no run exists or how partial output is handled.

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?

The core sentence is front-loaded and reasonably efficient despite the long file enumeration. The trailing '[bulc-mcp rules] GEN-010, ASET-004' bullet is metadata noise that doesn't help an agent call the tool and slightly dilutes the definition.

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 carries the burden of describing returns, and it does enumerate the file categories it reports. Still, it omits any indication of structured vs. textual output, error behavior when the deck has not been run, and how the listed artifacts differ from what fire_results_summary or result tools return for a one-parameter tool in a dense sibling set.

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 the fdsPath parameter and its default are already documented in the schema. The description adds only a little surrounding context (&HEAD CHID naming, adjacency to the .fds file) and no path-format or fallback details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: find result files for a deck and list slices, Plot3D times, Smoke3D and boundary/particle files. It enumerates the exact artifacts (.smv, _hrr.csv, etc.), so the agent knows this is an output-inventory tool. However, it never names the near-neighbor result readers (fire_results_summary, result_get_state) that an agent might confuse it with.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, nor any named alternative among the many result-related siblings. The only hint is implicit: results exist next to the .fds after a run. An agent must infer that this is a discovery step preceding analysis tools.

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