Result files of a standalone run

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this as a safe, non-mutating read, so the bar is lowered. The description adds that the artifacts are .erg result files and that companion tools consume them, but says nothing about ordering, volume, error states (e.g. no run present), or filtering behavior.

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?

One short sentence that is entirely front-loaded with the resource and then the next-step tools. No filler, no redundancy, and every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single optional parameter is covered by the schema. What is missing for a listing tool in a crowded results family is disambiguation from cm_results_list and any precondition about the run state; adequate but with clear 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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents 'instance' and the default-when-only-one behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource: the result .erg files produced by the instance's run, which is a clear noun+scope. It also implicitly differentiates itself from the reading tools by directing the agent to cm_results_summary / cm_results_read. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close sibling cm_results_list, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

It provides a useful forward-routing hint ('read them with cm_results_summary / cm_results_read'), telling the agent what to do after obtaining results. But there is no guidance on when to choose this over the near-identical cm_results_list, and no exclusion or precondition (e.g. that a run must have completed) is stated.

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