read_vmrs

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes the wrapper nature and filtering but doesn't disclose error handling, permissions, or potential side effects (though likely read-only). Adequate but could be more thorough.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage details. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

Has output schema, so return values are covered. Description explains wrapper behavior, filtering, and condition for enumeration. Could mention file existence handling, but overall sufficient given output schema presence.

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 50% (path has description, output_names does not). Description adds meaning for output_names ('filter; leave empty to attempt enumeration') and clarifies path expectation. Compensates well for incomplete schema.

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?

Description clearly states it reads simulation results from .vmrs files (specific verb and resource). Immediately distinguishes itself as a convenience wrapper for set_active_vmrs + get_simulation_results, setting it apart from siblings.

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?

Explicitly notes it doesn't need an open workbook, contrasting with alternatives like get_simulation_results. Also explains output_names filtering behavior and what happens when left empty. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but context is clear.

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