llm_request_result

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that the tool can retrieve both prompt and response and references the flight recorder, but does not disclose additional behaviors (e.g., error handling, authorization, or performance characteristics). Since annotations carry most of the burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and key detail (by correlationId). No unnecessary words or repetition. It is concise and immediately actionable.

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 that the tool has no output schema, the description could be more complete by hinting at the return format. However, the tool's purpose is straightforward (read back a request), and the description covers the key aspects. Slight gap for agents that need explicit output structure, but overall adequate.

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 100%, so the descriptions in the schema already explain each parameter. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'including prompt and response' maps to the includePrompt parameter, but the schema already says 'Include the full persisted prompt text'). 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 clearly states the action ('Read back'), the resource ('persisted request from the flight recorder'), and the key parameter ('by correlationId'). It also mentions that both prompt and response can be included, distinguishing it from sibling result tools that might only return status or metadata.

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 usage context (reading a persisted request by correlationId) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'job_result' or 'llm_job_result'. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer based on the correlationId parameter.

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