get_agent_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful behavioral traits: results are persisted (durable across reconnect) and turn history is paginated. It says nothing about whether the call blocks, whether the agent must be finished, what error occurs for an unknown agent, or what the response payload looks like.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler and no restatement of the tool name. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the specification gaps elsewhere rather than resolving them.

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 4-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description does far too little. An agent must still guess what a result object contains, how turn/limit/offset interact, and whether calling mid-run returns partial data.

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?

Four parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions any of them. 'agent', 'turn', 'limit' and 'offset' have self-explanatory names, but nothing clarifies whether 'turn' selects a single turn or a starting point, or what limit/offset window over.

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?

States a specific verb (retrieve) plus two concrete resources (persisted results, paginated turn history), which is enough to separate it from get_agent_events and wait_for_agents in spirit. It stops short of naming a sibling or scoping what a 'result' is versus an 'event', so it is clear but not sharply differentiated.

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 phrase 'after reconnect or resume' gives a genuine usage condition, which is more than nothing. However it offers no exclusion or alternative — an agent cannot tell from this why it would call get_agent_result instead of get_agent_events, list_agents, or wait_for_agents.

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