stata_get_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only and draws from session memory, which covers the main safety trait. However, it does not mention what happens when no results exist, whether a session must first be active, or that results may be overwritten by later commands.

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 one dense sentence that front-loads the purpose, the data source, and the read-only nature. Every phrase earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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, optional-parameter read-only retrieval tool, the description gives enough information about what is returned and where it comes from. It does not fully explain the result structure, but the absence of an output schema and the low complexity keep this from being a major 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single session_id parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is really needed; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('返回') and names a distinct resource: in-memory e()/r()/shape structured results in the current session. This clearly separates it from tools like stata_get_help and stata_session_history, though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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 '当前会话内存' implies it should be used after running Stata commands that produce e() or r() results, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or include exclusions. The usage context is inferable but not fully spelled out.

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