kopern_get_grading_results

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by indicating this is a read operation. It adds behavioral context by stating 'No LLM cost,' which is beyond the annotation, and lists the return contents, giving agents a clear picture of what the tool does and its resource impact.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the return details efficiently. Every part adds value without redundancy.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (per-case scores, agent outputs, criteria evaluations, improvement notes). For a retrieval tool with three required parameters, this covers the key aspects. It does not mention pagination or filtering, but given the specificity of run_id, agent_id, and suite_id, it implies a single result set, so it is sufficiently complete.

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 100% (all three parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema parameter descriptions. It mentions 'No LLM cost' but that is not param-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries most of the parameter information.

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 clearly states the verb (get), the resource (grading run results), and details what is included (per-case scores, agent outputs, criteria evaluations, improvement notes). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kopern_list_grading_runs (which lists runs) and kopern_run_grading (which initiates a run) by specifying it returns detailed results for a specific run.

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 does not explicitly provide when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. However, the context of siblings (e.g., kopern_list_grading_runs for finding run IDs, kopern_run_grading for starting a run) implies its usage, but no direct guidance is given.

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