cc98_search_resultsRetrieve existing search candidates by search_id and offset to avoid re-running searches. Paginate cached results within a 15-minute snapshot.
按 search_id 与 next_offset 读取已有候选；不再次搜索。快照 15 分钟内有效，服务重启或换账号后失效。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the snapshot has a 15-minute TTL and dies on service restart or account switch. It stops short of saying what happens when the search_id is expired (empty list vs. error) and describes paging in terms of 'next_offset' that does not exist in the schema.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is being read and the key constraint that no new search occurs. No filler, and the TTL caveat is placed where an agent will see it before calling.
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 read-only, idempotent continuation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: source identity, no re-search, and the lifetime of the snapshot. It is still thin on return shape (what a 'candidate' looks like, total counts) and on limit behavior, but those are secondary for a pager.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, but it covers only search_id's role and a continuation concept. It never mentions limit or its default of 10 / maximum of 20, and it calls the paging parameter 'next_offset' while the schema parameter is 'offset', which risks mis-invocation.
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?
States a specific verb (读取/续读) and resource (已有候选/search results snapshot), and explicitly disclaims searching again, which separates it from the sibling cc98_search. An agent can tell it apart from cc98_search and cc98_read_topic without opening any schema.
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?
It clearly says this reads an existing search by search_id rather than performing a new search, and adds a 15-minute validity window plus invalidation on restart or account switch, which is real usage context. However it never explicitly names the prerequisite tool (cc98_search) that produces search_id, so the routing direction is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.