list_computation_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the action ('List result files and folders') and basic behavior (path handling), but fails to disclose critical traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what 'list' entails (e.g., format, metadata included). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by essential usage notes. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and efficiently structured for quick understanding.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description covers the basic purpose and parameter requirement adequately. However, for a tool with no annotations, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or performance, making it minimally complete but with clear informational gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for 'computation_id' by stating it's 'required as string', clarifying its role in identifying the computation. However, it doesn't detail parameter constraints or provide examples, leaving some semantic gaps despite the single parameter.

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 ('List') and resource ('result files and folders generated by a computation'), specifying it operates at a given path. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_computations' by focusing on results rather than computations themselves, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_result_file_urls' or 'download_and_read_a_file_from_computation'.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'Empty path retrieves the /results root folder' and requiring 'computation_id', providing some context for when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_result_file_urls' or 'download_and_read_a_file_from_computation', leaving usage partially inferred.

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