study_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that CSV export uses exclusive creation and never overwrites, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it omits any statement about read-only nature, permission requirements, or potential side effects, which is a notable gap for a retrieval 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?

The description is concise, two sentences, with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the CSV detail is secondary. However, it could be more structured by leading with the required parameter context.

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?

Given the complexity (multiple output types) and the presence of an output schema, the description should explain how the study_id parameter selects results and how this tool differs from sibling results tools. It does neither, leaving the agent without enough context to call it correctly.

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 explain parameters. It only hints at csv_file (optional, exclusive creation) but provides no explanation for study_id, which is the required parameter. The agent cannot determine what study_id refers to or how it affects the result set.

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 retrieves probe histories, scalar responses, and mesh differences, which is a specific verb-resource pairing. It distinguishes from some siblings (e.g., results_compare) by mentioning mesh differences, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with results_probe or results_time_history, which likely overlap.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like results_probe or results_time_history. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the generic 'Get' phrasing.

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