vastu_job_results

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

readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context on top: paging is cursor-driven, a null cursor terminates the loop, and results have a 7-day lifetime. That expiry window is the kind of lifecycle detail annotations cannot express. It does not say what happens if the job is still running or the jobId is unknown, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the core action front-loaded before the pagination and expiry details. Nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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-shape explanation is correctly omitted, and the read-only nature is covered by annotations. However, for a job-scoped reader sitting alongside vastu_job_status and vastu_job_artifact, the description never establishes the division of labour or what state the job must be in, which is the main thing an agent needs before calling it.

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 carries the burden, and it only half-delivers: it explains the cursor contract (pass verbatim, null terminates) but says nothing about jobId beyond what the regex pattern shows. There is also an unremarked naming mismatch — the description says "nextCursor" while the schema property is "cursor" — leaving the agent to infer that nextCursor is the response field copied into cursor.

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?

"Read one results page with per-item response, receipts and artifacts" gives a specific verb (read) and resource (results page) and hints at the payload contents. It stops short of naming why an agent should pick this over the adjacent vastu_job_status or vastu_job_artifact, so the boundary between the three job tools is left implicit.

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 only usage instruction is pagination mechanics ("Pass nextCursor verbatim; null ends pagination"), which tells the agent how to iterate but not when to call this tool versus vastu_job_status or vastu_job_artifact. There is no statement of prerequisites such as the job needing to be complete before results exist.

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