Read Bruno result artifact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two meaningful traits: output is 'bounded' and 'redacted', which tells the agent results are truncated/sampled and sanitized. However, it omits error behavior for bad paths, permission needs, and what the summary actually contains beyond the redaction/bounding note.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the purpose is front-loaded ahead of the usage condition. 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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, provenance of the path, and the sampling/redaction behavior, which is enough to invoke it correctly. It could say slightly more about the summary's contents or failure modes, but nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so both the 'path' and 'max_items' semantics (default 3, max 20) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that the path comes from run-collection or run-filter-scenarios, adding minimal meaning over the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('Bruno result artifact'), and scopes it precisely as a 'bounded, redacted summary' from a path produced by run-collection or run-filter-scenarios. This clearly separates it from the sibling run-* and list-* tools, which produce rather than consume artifacts.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use this when response data is too large to include directly in a tool result.' It also identifies the upstream tools that supply the path. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., prefer direct output when data is small), so it is clear context without full exclusion guidance.

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