get_result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by indicating that the tool works over prior results and avoids re-running Unity work, but it does not reveal details about output modes, pagination behavior, or any hidden side effects. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence with no filler, and the key behavioral point about not repeating Unity work is front-loaded. It earns its place, though the brevity contributes to the lack of parameter clarity.

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?

With seven parameters, no parameter descriptions, no output schema, and an already-terse tool description, an agent has insufficient context to call the tool confidently. The description does not explain how paging, search, output modes, or character limits behave, leaving important invocation details to inference.

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 for the seven parameters, but it does not. 'Page, select, or search' loosely maps to limit/offset, result_id, and pattern/path, yet parameters such as max_chars, output_mode, and path remain unexplained. The description provides only weak semantic hints and does not carry the parameter-documentation burden.

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 identifies a specific resource ('a prior result') and a set of verbs ('Page, select, or search'), which makes the tool's purpose reasonably clear. It also adds the motivational context of avoiding repeated Unity work, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like search_capabilities or call_operation.

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 phrase 'without repeating Unity work' implies this tool should be used when a previous result already exists and should be retrieved rather than recomputed. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer get_result over siblings such as call_operation or search_capabilities, and no exclusions or alternative conditions are stated.

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