get_run_results

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'parsed' indicates structured data (distinguishing from raw file readers), the description omits critical details: return format, payload size considerations, idempotency, error behavior for invalid job IDs or failed runs, and whether it blocks for incomplete jobs.

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, efficient sentence with no redundant words. Key qualifiers ('full', 'parsed', 'completed') are front-loaded to immediately convey scope and distinguish the tool's output from alternatives.

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?

For a single-parameter retrieval tool, the description is minimally viable. However, given the lack of output schema and the likelihood that 'full results' represent a complex pharmacometric object, the description should indicate the return structure or content type (e.g., estimates, diagnostics, tables) to aid agent decision-making.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage ('Job ID from submit_run'), establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'by job ID' but adds no additional semantics regarding the parameter format, validation rules, or source constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the action ('Get'), resource ('full parsed results'), and scope ('completed NONMEM run'). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'check_run_status' (results vs status) and 'summarize_run' (full vs summary), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'parse_psn_results' which may cause confusion.

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 includes the constraint 'completed' which implies when to use it, but lacks explicit guidance on workflow (e.g., 'use check_run_status first to verify completion') or error handling if the run is still active. No alternative tools are mentioned for incomplete runs.

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