openvsp.read_results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing failure modes (unknown coefficient names, invalid manifests, missing requested logs all fail) and that known undefined ratios return explicit reasons rather than silent nulls. It stops short of describing pagination or return shape, but the output schema covers returns.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the argument mapping, then the routing to siblings, then the edge-case behavior. No filler or redundant preamble.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile; the description still covers prerequisites, failure behavior and sibling routing. The only minor omission is where this fits in the run lifecycle (e.g. after openvsp.run_vspaero completes), which is left implicit.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents manifest_file, log, log_tail_lines and coefficient_names in detail, including the 4 MiB read cap and 64 KiB tail limit. The description's parameter-relevant content (manifest_path mapped to manifest_file, unknown names fail) largely restates what the schema already says, so it lands at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (read a saved operation manifest's coefficients, settings, diagnostics, log tail) and explicitly delineates itself from openvsp.batch_status and openvsp.batch_export for batch.json. An agent can distinguish this from all listed siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Names the alternatives (batch_status, batch_export) and the condition that selects them (if you have batch.json, not an operation manifest). It also declares the when-not constraint that it does not launch OpenVSP/VSPAERO or write files, making the offline/read-only use case unambiguous.

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