dsh_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful traits: pagination, the fact that results are an 'untrusted worker report,' and the requirement to 'review diff and run acceptance checks.' It does not cover auth, errors, or rate limits, but the key behavioral caveats are present.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: scope, pagination, and trust/verification warning. The most important distinction is front-loaded, and there is no redundant filler.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, so the description must explain return semantics and usage context. It covers final text, completion status, pagination, and post-call verification, but it leaves parameter meaning and status values mostly to inference. It is reasonably complete for a result-fetching tool, though not exhaustive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only gives a vague pagination hint and does not explain session_id, after_cursor, offset, or max_chars. The schema provides names and defaults, but the description adds little beyond 'May be paginated.'

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get only final assistant text and completion status.' It also explicitly contrasts with history/thoughts by saying it 'never includes thoughts or intermediate tools,' which distinguishes it from siblings like dsh_read_history.

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 implies when to use this tool through phrases like 'only final assistant text' and 'never includes thoughts or intermediate tools,' but it never explicitly names an alternative or gives an exclusion condition. It gives some contextual guidance, but not a direct when-to-use recommendation.

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