get-results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not state what happens when no result exists, whether results expire or are cleared, the return shape, or error behavior — leaving the agent without any behavioral context for a read operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and both modes are stated immediately. It is efficiently sized, though it could carry more substance without becoming bloated.

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 no annotations, the description should describe what is actually returned (raw stdout, structured data, errors). It does not, so an agent cannot anticipate the response of this tool.

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%, and the schema already explains 'Specific command ID to retrieve, or omit for the latest result.' The description's mention of the latest result merely restates the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a clear verb-plus-resource ('Retrieve results of a previously executed command') and distinguishes the two retrieval modes (specific command vs. latest). It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings like getHistory or rollback, which an agent might confuse for retrieving prior execution output.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent is left to infer that this pairs with a command-execution tool such as run-script, and no alternative (e.g. getHistory) is named or excluded.

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