uoft_result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'without network access' and the note about handle expiration requiring a refetch. These details go beyond what annotations provide and help the agent understand operational constraints, though it doesn't describe the exact failure mode when the handle expires.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences with no filler. The primary behavior ('Select or page a snapshot without network access') is front-loaded, and the handle-expiry note is secondary. Every word earns its place; it is efficient and well-structured for quick scanning.

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 a complex optional 'selection' parameter and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It fails to explain what 'selection' does, what the expected return format is, or how to construct a valid selection. The note about handle expiration is useful but insufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly without additional inference. The schema's nested description partially compensates, but overall the description leaves critical gaps.

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%, and the tool description does not mention any parameters. Neither 'handle' nor 'selection' is explained in the description. The nested Selection schema has its own description, but the tool description itself provides no guidance on what these parameters mean or how they should be used, leaving a significant gap given the lack of schema-level descriptions for the top-level properties.

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 states a specific action ('Select or page') on a resource ('a snapshot') and notes the key constraint of no network access. It is clear enough to distinguish from general read operations, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like uoft_read. The term 'snapshot' is somewhat vague, but the core purpose is understandable.

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?

The description implies that this tool is used when you already have a handle (since it mentions 'Refetch when the handle expires'), but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like uoft_read or uoft_discover. There are no stated exclusions or conditions for choosing this tool, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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