Pull stored detail for a previous run

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only (no re-run), mentions features like 'addressable output' and 'captured syscall trace', and explains parameter behavior. It does not cover error handling or data retention, but provides sufficient transparency for usage.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and usage guidance. No redundant or boilerplate text. Parameter descriptions are embedded economically.

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?

The tool retrieves output but lacks an output schema; the description does not specify the format or structure of the returned data (e.g., raw text, JSON). Given that the tool has 3 parameters and is a retrieval operation, this is a notable gap. The sibling tools provide some context, but without output info, an agent may be unsure about how to process the result.

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 description adds significant value: it explains the 'id' field as coming from sh_run, elaborates on the 'selector' enum by naming feature A for 'trace', and describes 'match' as a grep-like filter. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 title and description clearly state the tool retrieves stored output from a previous sh_run without re-running. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sh_run by specifying it accesses stored results, and the 'feature J' reference adds context.

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 using this tool after a 'condensed result hid lines you need', which gives clear usage context. It also states it does not re-run. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or alternative tools beyond the sibling list.

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