best

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the Engine's ownership of ranking, the best-first order, the return shape (list of dicts with up to k records), and the error case. It also warns against an anti-pattern. This is thorough behavioral disclosure.

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 description is compact and front-loaded. It uses short paragraphs for purpose, usage, return, and a caution. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy. This is appropriately concise.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and an output schema (though not shown). The description covers purpose, usage timing, return format, and a mistake to avoid. This is complete for the tool's complexity and utility.

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. It explains 'k' as the cap on returned records and implies 'run_id' as the run identifier. It does not explicitly restate that run_id is required or that k defaults to 5, but the context is sufficient for correct usage. Slight gap in not naming run_id directly.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Read the best measured programs in a run.' It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'measured ranking' and 'best-first order,' which no other sibling tool claims. 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?

It provides explicit timing ('at checkpoints or after closure') and context (when you need current leaders). It also includes a warning not to bypass this measured ranking, but it does not name specific alternative tools or exclusion scenarios, so it stops short of a full 5.

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