scrapeer_get_run_results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the return structure in detail (envelope kinds, loop handling, truncation), and the condition that the run must be completed. This goes beyond annotations to fully disclose what the agent should expect.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN' and 'DO NOT USE' sections are concise and scannable. The return type explanation is detailed but every sentence serves a purpose, avoiding fluff.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description fully specifies the return payload (variables map and block_previews envelope format). It also clarifies the relationship to scrapeer_get_run_status and addresses loop handling. With only one parameter and rich annotations, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, execution_id, including its source. The description enhances this by adding the requirement that the execution_id must reference a 'completed run', which is a meaningful semantic constraint not present in the schema. However, it does not add format or syntax details beyond what the schema states.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the variables and per-block output previews from a completed run.' It specifies both the resource (run results) and the verb (get), and distinguishes it from siblings like scrapeer_get_run_status and scrapeer_get_run_steps by focusing on output contents.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'USE THIS TOOL WHEN: scrapeer_get_run_status shows "completed" and you need the scraped output. DO NOT USE: if the run is still active (check status first).' This clearly states when to use, when not to use, and implies checking status first.

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