get_reduction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description carries less burden. It adds a behavioral nuance by describing the result as 'immutable terminal,' indicating the result is final and not subject to change. However, it does not disclose return structure, potential errors, or any other safety-relevant details.

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 sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and object, earning its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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 is a simple read operation with one parameter, output schema, and strong annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it leaves gaps about what a 'reduction result' is and why 'reconnect' is used instead of 'get,' which could be unclear in a broader toolset with many similar get_* tools.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain reduction_id beyond its name. Although the parameter is self-explanatory (an ID for a reduction), the description adds no meaning about the expected format, source, or relationship to the returned result.

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 'Reconnect' and identifies a concrete resource: 'one immutable terminal reduction result.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like plan_reduction and execute_reduction, which are about planning and executing reductions rather than retrieving results.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool or how it relates to alternatives such as execute_reduction or get_experiment. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical flow, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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