results_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool returns typed structured results but does not mention error handling, prerequisites (e.g., run must be finalized), or any side effects. This is minimal for a tool that retrieves data.

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. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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?

While the tool has an output schema that may document return values, the description is too thin to fully orient an agent among many sibling tools. It lacks guidance on when this tool is preferred (e.g., after run completion) and does not clarify parameters or edge cases. It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage in the schema, and the tool description does not explain run_id or project_path. run_id is somewhat inferable from the tool name, but project_path's purpose is unclear. The description adds no semantic value beyond what the parameter names alone suggest.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('typed structured results') with a clear scope ('bound to one finalized run'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_status or data_inspect, which focus on run state or raw data inspection.

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 phrase 'bound to one finalized run' implies this tool is appropriate after a run finishes, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or what conditions are required. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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