toolport_fetch_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool paginates through a truncated result, that nothing is lost, and how the marker works. Could mention behavior for invalid cursors, but overall transparent.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then reassurance. No unnecessary words. Efficient and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description doesn't detail return format but implies it returns the next chunk. It covers the trigger and parameters adequately. Could specify what to expect on success or failure, but mostly complete.

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% for both parameters, with descriptions already defining cursor and offset. The description adds context that the offset is shown in the marker, but this is minor. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds marginal value over the schema.

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 states the tool reads more of a large tool result that was truncated, using a cursor and offset. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like toolport_call_tool (calls a tool) and toolport_search_tools (searches 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 explicitly explains when to use: when a result is too big and a marker is returned. It details the parameters (cursor and offset from the marker) and reassures that nothing was lost. No explicit exclusion of alternatives, but the context makes it clear.

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