Get Job Result

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that the call waits for a running job and is bounded by the job's timeout, and it specifies the returned fields (exit code, stdout, stderr, duration). It does not cover error/timeout outcomes, but for a simple retrieval-and-wait tool this is solid behavioral disclosure.

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 with no filler: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides the key behavioral detail and return shape. All information is front-loaded and every 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?

For a one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, explains blocking behavior, and references the return shape. It could note where job_id comes from or how timeout/failure behaves, but these are minor gaps given the simplicity and output schema coverage.

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 only parameter, job_id, is fully documented in the schema with 'Job id to fetch.' and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not add further parameter-level guidance, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch the completed result of a background command.' It also clarifies what it is not by noting it returns the same shape as execute_experiment, which differentiates it from status-only siblings like get_job_status. The purpose is immediately clear.

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 usage: call this to get a background command's result, and it will wait if the job is still running. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as get_job_status for non-blocking status checks or say when not to use this tool. The context is clear but the boundary against siblings is left to inference.

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