cadlens_get_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. It discloses that the 'full' mode can be very large, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention failure modes (e.g., job not found, still running) or explicitly state read-only behavior beyond the verb 'Fetch'. The prerequisite 'completed' is mentioned but not elaborated.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by concise mode usage. Every phrase earns its place with no filler or 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?

For a result-retrieval tool with 4 params and no output schema, the description covers the essential modes, the size warning, and the completion prerequisite. It could be slightly more explicit about the nature of the 'summary' output, but the sibling tools provide enough context for an agent to select and invoke this tool successfully.

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 50%, with descriptions only for layer_name and entity_type. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of each mode and clarifying that 'full' returns large JSON. It doesn't describe job_id, but that's self-explanatory. The conditional requirements are already in the schema, so the description adequately compensates for the coverage gap.

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 starts with 'Fetch the parsed result of a completed CAD job', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like cadlens_get_job (status) and cadlens_parse_file (creation) by focusing on parsed results of completed jobs.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool (after completion) and provides mode-specific guidance (summary, entities_by_type, entities_on_layer, full). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling context and 'completed' prerequisite make the usage clear.

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