astrovisor_result_get

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'optional selective serialization' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as error handling, required prerequisites, or the effect of serialization parameters. The tool has many complex parameters but the description provides no additional behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 (10 words) that conveys the core purpose. While very concise, it earns its place; however, given the tool's complexity, a slightly longer description could be justified. Score 4 for efficient structure.

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 description lacks context about the return value (no output schema), the relationship to astrovisor_request (resultId origin), and typical usage scenarios. For a tool with rich serialization options, more guidance on when to use them would improve completeness.

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 high (nearly all properties have descriptions). The tool description adds only 'optional selective serialization' which is a general characterization, but does not provide specific semantics for parameters beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the action (Get), the resource (stored full result), the key identifier (resultId), and the optional feature (selective serialization). This distinguishes it from siblings like astrovisor_request (creates a request) and astrovisor_openapi_* (API schema tools).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it follows astrovisor_request (since resultId comes from there), but this is not stated. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are provided.

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