get_results

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the tool reads visible metrics and does not start a new run, signaling a non-destructive read operation. It does not describe error scenarios or preconditions (e.g., what happens if no results are visible), which is a minor gap given the simplicity of the 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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Read the currently visible AlgoTest Backtest result metrics') and includes a relevant constraint ('without starting a new run'). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete for an agent to invoke it correctly. It states what the tool reads and explicitly denies side effects, which is all that is needed for correct usage. There are no missing fields or behaviors that would prevent an agent from using it appropriately.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters, as there is nothing to add. The description correctly does not mention parameters, and the schema fully defines the input expectations.

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 verb 'Read', a resource 'currently visible AlgoTest Backtest result metrics', and adds the scope 'without starting a new run', which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like run_backtest and preview_backtest. An agent can readily infer what this tool does and how it differs from the others.

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 explicitly notes that it does not start a new run, implying it is for reading existing results, which is a clear usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., after a backtest has been run or previewed), nor does it state prerequisites (e.g., that a run must have already occurred). The context is clear enough for basic usage, but lacks explicit alternative routing.

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