rca_analysis_get_result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it returns the 'full stored RCAResult' as a JSON string and specifies that a not_found error occurs if the ID does not exist or belongs to another user.

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 a clear purpose statement, usage guidance, Args, and Returns sections. It is reasonably concise, though the Args block duplicates schema information and could be trimmed without losing value.

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 read-only retrieval tool, the description covers the invocation flow, prerequisites, error behavior, and return value. The schema covers required fields and defaults, and the annotations cover safety and idempotency. No important information is missing for an agent to select and call this tool correctly.

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 schema already describes token as the API key, client_id as the client namespace, and result_id as a prior analysis result ID. The description's Args section mostly repeats the result_id semantics, so it adds little meaning beyond what the schema provides. This is acceptable because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve a previously saved RCA result by result_id.' It clearly identifies this tool as a fetch-by-ID operation and differentiates it from rca_analysis_list_results by stating that list_results is the tool to use when you do not yet have a result_id.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: call it after rca_analysis_run or rca_analysis_run_async + rca_analysis_poll_task when you already have the result_id. It also names concrete downstream uses (rca_report_generate, rca_analysis_compare) and tells the agent to use rca_analysis_list_results instead if no result_id is available.

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