openvsp.read_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool does not run OpenVSP, indicating a safe, read-only nature. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects such as error handling, file access requirements, or the structure of returned data. The disclosure is minimal but not misleading.

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 filler. It efficiently conveys the primary purpose and the key constraint (no OpenVSP run), making it easy to scan and understand.

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 nested parameter schema and no annotation coverage, yet the description offers almost no context about what 'manifest_file' refers to, what output to expect (despite an output schema existing), or any prerequisites. For an agent to call this correctly, it would need to infer heavily from the schema, making the description inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters at all. It mentions 'coefficients' and 'log tails', which loosely map to coefficient_names and log_tail_lines, but there is no explicit link. The nested 'request' object and its required manifest_file are left entirely unexplained, so the description fails to add meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states the action (read), the resources (saved coefficients, settings, log tails), and the key condition (without running OpenVSP). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that run or submit jobs, such as run_vspaero or batch_submit, by emphasizing it is a read-only operation.

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 usage for reading saved results without running OpenVSP, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide criteria for when to use this tool versus others like query or batch_status. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, leaving some room for inference.

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