read_result_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does very little. It never says whether this is a safe read, whether it requires an existing job, whether content is truncated, or what happens if the filename does not exist. Listing the accepted file categories is the only behavioral signal offered.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be described. But with 0% schema coverage on parameters and no annotations, the agent still lacks the meaning of job_id, the truncation semantics of max_chars, and any precondition linking this tool to a completed job.

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 all three parameters are undocumented structurally. The description partially compensates by naming the file categories (CSV, Touchstone, notes, diagnostics) that filename can target, but job_id and max_chars (including its truncation role and 16000 default) get no meaning from either source.

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 the resource types it can return (exported CSV, Touchstone, notes, diagnostics), which is more informative than a bare 'read file'. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_artifacts, which an agent would likely consider first when looking for job output files.

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 only usage hint is 'for analysis in the assistant,' which is vague intent rather than a condition for selection. There is no statement of when to use this versus get_artifacts or read_api, no prerequisites (e.g., job must have completed), and no exclusions.

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