get_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only lookup, but the description provides no details about side effects, data availability, error behavior, or what happens if the benchmark results do not yet exist.

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 focused sentence with no filler, no repetition of the tool name, and the object of the operation is stated immediately. It is concise and to the point.

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 simple two-parameter lookup, the description is minimally adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations it leaves out useful context such as the shape of returned results, whether the benchmark must have been run beforehand, and how missing results are handled. This is a clear but not severe completeness gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description loosely restates the two required parameters as 'implementation and test case' without adding new meaning. It does not clarify ID formats, sources, or expected values, so it adds only minimal value beyond 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('benchmark results') scoped to an implementation and test case, making the tool's core purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like query_performance or benchmark_all, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as query_performance, list_test_cases, or run_benchmark. There is no mention of preconditions, exclusions, or typical scenarios, so the agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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