get_reduction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying the result is 'immutable' and 'terminal', indicating the reduction must have completed and the result will not change. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentence with no filler words or redundant restatements of the tool name. It is concise, but the brevity sacrifices clarity, so it is not perfect.

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?

The tool has a simple signature, a single parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits guidance about where reduction_id comes from and how this tool relates to the reduction lifecycle, making the description minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the only parameter, reduction_id, and the tool description does not explain how the ID is obtained or what it references. The parameter name is self-explanatory to some degree, but with no schema descriptions and no compensating information, the agent is left without guidance about what values are valid.

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 identifies a resource (a reduction result) and suggests an existing, completed object, but the verb 'reconnect' is vague and does not explicitly say 'retrieve' or 'get by ID'. It distinguishes from planning/executing reductions only by the phrase 'terminal reduction result', which is indirect.

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 the tool is for an already-existing reduction result, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives such as execute_reduction, plan_reduction, or list_artifact_reductions. The agent must infer usage from the name and context rather than from stated guidance.

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