workspace_get_result_reading_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait by promising deterministic, local, read-oriented paths, suggesting a safe idempotent operation. However, it remains silent on path existence, error behavior for invalid result IDs, and the impact of the recursive flag, so transparency is only partial.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition, making it easy to scan. It is appropriately terse, though it could have used one more clause to convey the recursive parameter without becoming verbose.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, and the description does not explain the return format, what a 'reading path' consists of, or how recursive changes the result. Given a required result_id and an optional recursive flag, an agent lacks enough context to know the exact effect of recursion or what to do with the returned paths. The tool is too opaque relative to its sibling-rich environment.

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, but it only maps 'one result' to result_id. The recursive parameter—a boolean with default true—receives no explanation, leaving a core behavioral switch undocumented. This is partial compensation at best.

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 ('Return') with a concrete resource ('deterministic local reading paths') and scopes it to 'one result,' which differentiates it from sibling getters like workspace_get_result and workspace_get_reading_session. The modifiers 'deterministic' and 'local' add precision about what kind of path is returned.

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 states only what the tool returns; it gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as workspace_get_result, workspace_get_result_proof, or workspace_export_reading_bundle. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection conditions, so an agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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