Get AgentFEM result summary

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is lighter. It adds meaningful context by specifying what is read: the structured scientific result and the trust state. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key action, then clarifies the scope and adds the trust-state detail. Every part contributes meaning.

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?

The description plus annotations and output schema cover the overall read operation well, but the zero parameter description coverage leaves ambiguity around path and detail. There is also no explicit routing guidance versus get_run_status, so the context is adequate but not fully complete.

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 needs to compensate for what the schema omits. It does not explain path, detail, or job_id, and only loosely maps 'completed job or latest run' to the job-related parameters. The detail enum is left entirely unannotated in prose.

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 action and object: 'Read the structured scientific result' for a completed job or the project's latest run. It also includes the useful extra of the trust state. It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_run_status, but the object is distinct enough to avoid obvious confusion.

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 'for a completed job or the project's latest run' gives clear contextual guidance about when the tool is appropriate. It does not name alternatives or state explicit exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to understand the basic trigger condition.

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