read_results

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation in a closed world. The description adds that only verified results are read and that output is bounded by points, which is useful context, but it does not describe error behavior, result format, or how verification status affects reading.

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 wasted words. It conveys the core action and scope efficiently.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in detail. However, the description leaves the required path parameter's meaning unstated and provides no usage alternatives, which are notable gaps for a tool with two parameters and many sibling tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It partially explains max_points by saying results have a bounded number of points, but it does not clarify what the required path parameter refers to or how it should be formed.

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 names a specific verb (read), resource (simulation results), and qualifies the data type (verified QucsData v2 real/complex). It clearly distinguishes the tool from most siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from compare_results or preview-oriented 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?

The description implies that the tool is used to read simulation results, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives such as compare_results. An agent must infer the usage context.

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