get_diagnostic_remediation_results

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

Annotations already establish this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it reveals the output shape (status, trigger type, executor, script output, timing) and highlights the input/output time unit mismatch (milliseconds vs seconds). No contradictions found.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and expected output, the second delivers the essential constraints and unit clarification. Every word earns its place.

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 has 13 parameters, a 100% described schema, and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral and structural aspects: what is returned, the required selector, and time-unit handling. It does not elaborate on pagination via cursors/offset/limit, but those are documented in the schema and the tool's core use is still understandable without that detail.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter is described individually. The description adds cross-parameter meaning by stating the 'exactly one' mutual exclusion between alert_id and host_id, and by explaining that time-window parameters use epoch milliseconds while result timestamps use epoch seconds. This goes beyond the per-parameter schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('structured execution results for diagnostic and remediation source runs'), and enumerates the returned fields (status, trigger type, executor, script output, timing). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as get_diagnosticsources (which lists sources, not results) and get_diagnostic_remediation_assignments (assignments, not execution output).

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 provides concrete invocation constraints: 'Provide exactly one of alert_id or host_id' and clarifies time unit conventions. This is clear context for when to call the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the required-parameter guidance is strong enough for a 4.

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