Read SCAPS results

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only one table is returned at a time and what table categories exist, but says nothing about pagination/truncation from max_rows/offset, file-listing behavior, or error handling.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The table-type enumeration is compact and directly useful, and nothing is redundant.

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?

The tool has an output schema and annotations, reducing what the description must cover, and it explains the one-table-per-call model and table types. However, it omits important retrieval behavior: the default max_rows cap of 200, offset/thinning semantics for long profiles, and the file-listing fallback when 'file' is omitted.

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?

With 71% schema coverage, the baseline would be 3, but the description meaningfully supplements the 'table' parameter by enumerating valid table categories (J-V, QE, C-V, C-f, band, generation, AC profiles) that the schema does not constrain via enum. It does not clarify offset/max_rows/step paging semantics, which lack descriptions in the schema.

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 and resource ('Return one table of a result file') and enumerates the table types (J-V, QE, C-V, etc.), making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like scaps_list_files or scaps_plot, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage for extracting a single table, and the schema notes that omitting 'file' lists files, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g., scaps_list_files for listing, scaps_plot for visualization). Implied usage only.

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