get_validation_results

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by revealing that results are also persisted to codeguardian-report.json at the project root and can be read by file tools. The word "Retrieve" implies a read operation, and no destructive side effects are hidden, though it does not discuss auth, rate limits, or behavior for incomplete jobs.

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 two tight sentences. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the file-persistence detail earns its place in the second without adding noise.

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 read-only retrieval tool with fully documented parameters, the description plus schema is largely sufficient for an agent to call it correctly after validation completes. The lack of an output schema means the exact result shape is not spelled out, but the saved report file and companion status tool mitigate that 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters, so the description is not required to re-explain them. It adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable but does not warrant a higher score.

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 a specific verb and resource: "Retrieve final results" for a "completed validation job." It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_validation_status and start_validation by focusing on final results rather than status or triggering validation.

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 phrase "completed validation job" establishes the key prerequisite: only use this tool after validation has finished. It also notes that results are saved to codeguardian-report.json and readable by file tools, hinting at an alternative access path. However, it does not explicitly mention using get_validation_status to check progress or name exclusions.

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