Pull stored detail for a previous run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that the tool does not re-run the command. This is a key behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behaviors, which would be helpful for an agent to fully understand the tool's 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?

The description is two concise sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then provide usage context. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 the tool has three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential functionality and usage scenario. It explains when to use the tool and what it returns at a high level. However, it does not elaborate on the return format or potential edge cases, which would raise it to a 5.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional information about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, such as the meaning of the 'id' or how to use 'match' and 'selector'. The schema alone is sufficient.

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 retrieves full stored output for a previous sh_run by ID without re-running. It distinguishes itself from siblings like sh_run by emphasizing the 'without re-running' aspect and the 'addressable output store', making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 advises to use this tool after a condensed result has hidden needed lines, providing clear context for when it is appropriate. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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