view_results

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the Output application's state-dependent behavior, the absence of open_project in the Output role, and the prerequisite that the phase must be calculated. It does not contradict annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and coherently describes an open/state-changing 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?

Three sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the action, the second gives architectural rationale, and the third provides a clear usage directive. Every sentence adds value and the description is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 description covers the full workflow: prerequisite (calculated phase), the state of the Output application, and next steps (read results through Output server). With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. This is complete for a single-parameter tool with strong annotations.

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?

The schema has one parameter 'phase' with no description (0% coverage). The description partially compensates by stating the phase must have status 'calculated', but it does not clarify the expected format (e.g., ID vs name) or how to obtain it. Given the minimal schema, some additional parameter detail would be expected.

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 states a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('a calculated phase in the PLAXIS Output application'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is 'the only route from a calculated Input model to the Output endpoint's results', differentiating it from open_project and calculate.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Call this for a phase whose status is "calculated"'. It also explains the architectural context (Output role has no open_project) and gives a sequential instruction ('then read results through the Output server'). This clearly tells the agent when and how to use the tool.

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