Read Sanitized Results

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions reading at most three results and labeling them as untrusted, but does not clarify whether the labeling is a side effect, whether the read is idempotent, or what authentication or access implications exist. This is a significant gap for a tool that appears to mark content.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no filler words and every phrase earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given there is no output schema, no annotations, and only two parameters, the description leaves key context ambiguous: what 'sanitized' means, what a 'fixture result' is, what the return format looks like, and how the 'untrusted external content' label affects the agent's next steps. The tool appears part of a workflow but lacks enough context to be used effectively.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the 'limit' parameter via 'at most three' but does not explain the meaning or format of 'executionId'. The schema provides structural constraints but not semantic meaning, and the description adds minimal value beyond that.

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 the specific verb 'read' with a clear resource ('locally generated fixture results') and an additional purpose ('label them as untrusted external content'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that plan, approve, or execute operations.

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 context of sibling tools (plan_operation, approve_operation, execute_approved_operation) implies this is used after execution, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. No exclusions are given, so the usage context is only implied.

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