sim_get_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that this is a read of an existing .sdf, the default-source behavior, sampling behavior ('up to max_points samples evenly spaced'), the statistics-only mode when max_points=0, and that failures return an error naming what is missing. It does not state file-size/performance limits or whether it errors when no prior sim_run exists, leaving a small gap.

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 summary sentence, then a paragraph on data shape, then structured Args and Returns blocks. Dense with information and free of filler; the AC-wave and independent-variable notes are non-obvious details worth their length.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still sketches the return shape ({analysis, waves: [...]}) and error behavior, and it fully documents five otherwise-undescribed parameters. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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, and it does: all five parameters are explained with meaning and edge-case semantics (empty results_document = last sim_run, empty analysis = all, empty waves = all, max_points=0 = statistics only, all_runs = every run vs latest). Example values are given for wave names and analysis names.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Read a simulation's results') and immediately scopes the content ('every wave, with sampled points'). The second paragraph identifies the underlying artifact (.sdf written by sim_run) and the default fallback, which distinguishes it from the sibling sim_run that produces that file.

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 clear from context: it reads what sim_run saved, with an explicit default ('empty uses the last sim_run') and per-argument conventions for narrowing (analysis by name, waves to keep, all_runs for multi-run documents). It lacks an explicit 'do not use this to run a simulation' exclusion or a named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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