cst_read_saved_result

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses that reading happens without opening CST, raw real/imag values stay unchanged while format adds derived values, and max_points controls whether all samples or a sampled preview are returned. It could go further by describing error behavior for missing paths or run_ids, but the disclosed behaviors are meaningful and not hidden.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action first, then the key behavioral nuances. No filler or repetition of schema defaults; every sentence earns its place.

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 five-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify return structure, but it only says a curve is read and mentions samples without stating the returned fields or shape. It covers core semantics and sampling behavior adequately, yet an agent still lacks a complete picture of what the call returns.

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, and it does for two parameters: max_points (0 means all samples) and format (adds derived values over raw real/imag). However, tree_path format, project_path meaning, run_id semantics, and the format enum values are left unexplained, leaving gaps for required and optional parameters.

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 verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('complete complex 1D curve'), and the exact addressing mechanism ('tree path and run_id' from a completed saved .cst). It also distinguishes itself from heavier workflows by adding 'without opening CST', making it easy for an agent to tell apart from related tools like cst_list_saved_results or cst_get_s_parameters.

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 conveys a clear context: use this when a saved .cst already has completed results and you need an exact curve without launching CST. It implies prerequisites (completed save, exact tree path, run_id) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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