get_mask_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only lists the counters. It does not say the call is a read-only, side-effect-free query, nor that a mask test must be active for meaningful counters, nor whether counters reset between runs (a relevant concern given the sibling `reset`).

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is a fragment rather than a full sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not document return structure, and it correctly avoids repeating detailed return values. However, for a tool with no annotations it omits prerequisites and the calling context needed to use it correctly, leaving it minimally adequate.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is trivially complete, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for; the baseline for a no-parameter tool 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 names the resource (mask test counters) and the specific values returned (failed, passed, total frame counts), which is enough for an agent to recognize this as the mask-test result reader as opposed to configure_mask or get_mask_config. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it is clear but not sharply differentiated.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, whether a mask test must be configured/running first, or how it relates to get_mask_config and configure_mask. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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