results_list

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 discloses two key behaviors beyond a basic listing: recursive search and lexical sorting (explicitly noting not physical time). This adds useful context, though it does not explicitly state read-only status or error handling; the word 'discover' implies non-mutation.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, lists file types, and notes the sorting nuance. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 is likely covered. However, the description omits edge-case behavior (e.g., empty directories, non-existent paths) and does not clarify how this tool relates to other results_* siblings beyond the implicit list function. For a simple list tool it is mostly adequate, but some contextual guidance 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?

The only parameter, case_dir, has 0% schema description coverage. The description merely repeats the term 'case directory' without adding details on path format, required permissions, validation, or absolute vs relative paths. It fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving the parameter semantics under-specified.

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 states a specific action (discover result artifacts) and resource (case directory), and enumerates concrete file types (VTK/VTU, GiD post, HDF5, JSON, .dat/.csv) plus the sorting behavior. It clearly distinguishes from sibling results tools by focusing on file discovery rather than time history, probing, or rendering, but it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 implies when to use this tool (when a list of result files is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead. There is no mention of alternatives like results_time_history or results_summary, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and purpose.

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