result_detail

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the source of the ids and that query returns matching lines with numbers, but it says nothing about error behavior for invalid/expired ids or what happens when lines fall out of range — meaningful gaps for a retrieval tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the mechanic and the routing preference. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 four-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the core workflow (get id from note, request lines or query) is fully described. Only failure/edge-case behavior is absent, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 already 100%, and the description merely restates the same examples (id r1, lines 200-260, query as text to find). No additional syntax, precedence, or interaction rules (e.g. lines vs query together) are added beyond the schema.

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 (Read) plus resource (part of a long tool result shortened by tokensave-mcp-diet) and enumerates the content types it covers (script output, logs, dumps). An agent can immediately tell this is a retrieval-by-id paging tool, not a re-execution tool.

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 explicitly tells the agent to take the `id` from the note and states the preferred alternative: 'Prefer this over running the command again.' That is a real when-to-use rule. It stops short of naming a sibling tool as the fallback, so it is not a full 5.

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