Get Agent Eval Result

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what annotations already declare. Annotations indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description does not mention return format, pagination, auth requirements, or any other behavioral trait. It does not contradict annotations, but it also provides no supplementary context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient for a simple getter, though its brevity is also a cause of under-specification. It earns high marks for conciseness but not for substance.

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?

With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description leaves important context unstated, such as what the result contains or whether the ID is a config ID rather than an evaluation run ID. Given the simplicity of the tool, a slightly richer description would be needed to ensure correct invocation and interpretation of results.

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 already covers 100% of parameter documentation, but the description introduces ambiguity by saying 'agent eval id' while the schema clarifies 'Agent eval config id'. The description does not add meaning and could mislead the agent about which ID type is expected.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('agent evaluation results') with a scoping identifier ('by agent eval id'). However, it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings like lyzr_get_agent_eval or lyzr_get_agent_eval_result_by_agent, which also involve agent evaluations.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does without mentioning when it is appropriate, conditions, or exclusions. Related sibling tools exist that could be confused with this one.

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