get_fault_experiment

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful context by noting the result is 'immutable' and 'completed', which tells the agent the object is final and only available after completion. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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, direct sentence with no filler or repetition. It fronts the core action and resource immediately, and every word contributes to the meaning. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 (one parameter), the presence of an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It states the operation, the object type, and the state of the result. It lacks only explicit usage context, such as when this should be invoked relative to fault experiment planning or execution, but this is not critical for a straightforward getter.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It does associate result_id with a fault experiment result, which gives some meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not explain where the result_id comes from or how it relates to other tools, leaving some semantic ambiguity for a single required parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') with a precise resource ('fault experiment result') and adds state qualifiers ('immutable completed'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like plan_fault_experiment or run_fault_experiment, which involve creating or executing experiments rather than reading a completed result.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used after running a fault experiment, nor does it name any sibling tools for comparison. The 'completed' qualifier implies a usage condition, but no direct routing or exclusion is given.

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