OBS Results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds that waiting is bounded and mechanical rather than model-driven, which is useful behavioral context. It still omits return shape, pending-state semantics, and auth/diagnostic behavior that a read tool without an output schema should ideally disclose.

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 the purpose and followed by a specific usage directive. Every sentence carries weight, and there is no redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 an 8-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimal: it never describes what 'OBS results' contain or how to interpret pending/failure states. Annotations and 75% schema coverage fill some gaps, but the missing return-value guidance and sibling differentiation leave real holes. Adequate but incomplete.

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 75%, so most parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description only elaborates on wait_seconds, adding rationale beyond the schema's 'mechanically wait' wording, but it says nothing about the undocumented project and package parameters or interactions among server, api_alias, and timeout. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Read OBS results states a clear verb and resource, so an agent can tell this is a read operation on OBS output. However, 'results' is underspecified and the description never differentiates this tool from close siblings like sailfish_obs_watch or sailfish_obs_buildlog. Clear purpose, but no sibling routing.

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 one explicit usage rule: use wait_seconds for bounded mechanical monitoring instead of repeated model-driven status calls. That is useful guidance for avoiding polling loops, but it never states when to choose this tool over sailfish_obs_watch or other OBS/build-status siblings, and it offers no prerequisites or exclusions.

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