Read job result

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

Annotations give idempotent/non-destructive but readOnlyHint=false, which the description justifies by disclosing that cancel:true aborts a running job. It also adds cost context not in annotations ('No model call, free'), useful for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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?

A single dense sentence with semicolons that front-loads the core read action, then sub-capabilities, then the cancel behavior. Every clause carries information; minor density cost from packing many features into one sentence.

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 8 parameters, the description covers the key result facets (pages, grep, check, source) and the cancel side effect; enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though pagination (offset/limit) semantics are left to the schema.

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 all 8 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description echoes the purpose of grep/check/source but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Read) and resource (an eyes_run result by id) and enumerates what the result contains: pages, grep, check report, source text. It clearly routes from the eyes_run sibling, though it doesn't differentiate from eyes_stats.

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?

Implies usage by saying to read result 'by the id from its header' of eyes_run, and notes cancel: true aborts a running job. It does not explicitly say when to use this versus eyes_stats or when to run eyes_run first, so guidance is largely inferential.

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