get_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the bounded nature ('never a full dump') and describes the return format for both cases. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or side effects, but the key behavioral trait (boundedness) is addressed.

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 well-structured with sections for behavior, dependencies, parameters, and returns. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and bounded nature.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (3 params with conditional logic) and presence of an output schema (not shown but noted), the description covers prerequisites, parameter details, and return types completely. No gaps or ambiguities.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: model_id, key (with enumerated valid values), and column (with conditional behavior and an example). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states 'Read stored run results for a model' and specifies the bounded nature, distinguishing it from sibling tools that modify or inspect models. The verb 'Read' and resource 'run results' are specific.

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 explicitly requires calling run_model first and explains when to use the optional column parameter versus omitting it. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, but the context is clear.

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