results_convergence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the read/extract nature and the specific data returned, but says nothing about failure modes, mutual exclusivity of the two optional sources, required permissions, or log-format expectations — significant gaps for an annotation-free 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and resource, then qualifies the source and the outputs. No filler and no repetition of the name or title.

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 values need no explanation, and the description stays appropriately scoped for a two-parameter read tool. The one unresolved ambiguity — both parameters are optional with no stated precedence or exclusivity — keeps it from a 5.

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 coverage is 0% and neither parameter has a description, yet the text clarifies the role of both: one selects by job_id, the other by explicit log file path, framing them as alternative sources. That is real meaning added beyond the bare 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?

States a specific verb ("extract") and resource ("convergence information from a simulation log") and enumerates the returned content (per-step iteration counts, residual ratios, converged steps). This clearly differentiates it from generic siblings like results_summary or results_probe, though it never names an alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by naming the two source modes (job_id vs explicit log file path), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing against obvious siblings such as job_logs or results_list. An agent must infer the intended context.

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