Systemonomic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'previously persisted assessment results,' implying it's a read-only operation that retrieves existing data, which is helpful. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it returns all results or paginated data. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 highly concise and well-structured: two sentences that front-load the core purpose ('Get stored ATSS results for a project') and follow with details on return values. Every sentence earns its place by adding value—no wasted words or redundancy.

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's complexity (retrieving persisted results), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and return content but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details like error cases. With an output schema, it doesn't need to explain return values, but the gaps in other areas prevent a perfect score.

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 input schema has 1 parameter ('project_id') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic context. The description compensates by implying that 'project_id' identifies the project for which to retrieve ATSS results. It doesn't specify format or constraints, but given the low schema coverage and single parameter, this adds meaningful value beyond the schema, warranting a score above the baseline.

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 purpose: 'Get stored ATSS results for a project.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('stored ATSS results'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'persist_atss_results' (which stores results) and 'list_atss_runs' (which lists runs). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_tasks' or 'derive_task_suggestions,' which might also involve task-related data, making it slightly less specific than a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that results must be persisted first), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_atss_runs' (which might list runs without detailed results) or 'list_tasks' (which might list tasks without ATSS assessments). This leaves the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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