read_cached_result

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It clearly states that only a slice is read, that pagination is supported via offset/length, and that the response includes next_offset and remaining_chars to indicate progress. This gives the agent a precise mental model of the tool's behavior without relying on the schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then adding precise operational details. There is no redundant or filler content; every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's function and usage.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the key return semantics (next_offset, remaining_chars) and the pagination loop. It provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly with just the cache_id, and it handles the typical use case of reading large cached results. The tool's complexity is low and this description covers the essential aspects completely.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds significant semantic value by explaining how offset/length relate to slicing and pagination ('Page through', 'response reports next_offset + remaining_chars until done'). This goes beyond the bare schema descriptions of 'Start character offset' and 'Number of characters to return.'

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 specifies a clear verb ('Read') and resource ('slice of a large cached result'), and explains where these results come from (another tool's output with 'cached':true + cache_id). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_cached_results, which presumably list available cached results rather than reading them.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: after another tool produces a cached result, look for a cache_id. It explains the pagination workflow with offset/length and next_offset/remaining_chars. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when *not* to use it, but the intended usage is unambiguous given the family of sibling tools.

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