results_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses recursive search behavior and sorting by name for timestep ordering, which adds useful context beyond the schema. It does not mention error conditions or empty results, but the output schema likely covers the return format.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action ('Discover result artifacts'), lists specific file types, and includes key behavioral details (recursive, sorted). No redundant or vague wording.

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 simple listing tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the scope (case directory), the object types, and sorting behavior. It does not describe edge cases or usage constraints, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema.

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 is implicitly referenced by 'in a case directory', but the description does not explicitly map the parameter or explain its format (e.g., absolute path, directory existence). With 0% schema coverage, the description provides minimal compensation, though the parameter name and title offer some clarity.

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 clearly states the tool's function: discovering result artifacts in a case directory. It enumerates specific file types (VTK/VTU, GiD post files, HDF5, JSON, .dat/.csv), which distinguishes it from sibling result tools like results_probe or results_summary.

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 usage context is implied by the listing nature of the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as results_probe or results_summary. It lacks exclusions or alternative tool references.

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