get_tendon_length_result

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds little behavioral detail beyond the tool's read-only purpose, but it does not contradict the annotations and is consistent with a side-effect-free getter.

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 English description is a single efficient sentence. The parenthetical Chinese translation is redundant for an AI agent selecting a tool, but it does not add meaningful clutter. The essential information is front-loaded.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only getter with strong annotations, the description sufficiently communicates what the tool returns. No output schema exists, but the purpose is straightforward and the expected result type is clear from the tool name.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the parameter semantics are fully covered by the empty input schema. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies.

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 verb ('get'), a specific resource ('tendon length results'), and a clear scope ('all'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tendon_loss_results and get_tendon_position_result, which target different result types.

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 usage context is implied by the name and description: call this when you want all tendon length results. However, it does not explicitly contrast with related tendon-result tools or state when not to use it, so guidance is only implied.

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