agy_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does useful work: it implies a read-only retrieval, defines the default (latest finished job from agy_sessions), and clarifies the include_events toggle. However it never states failure modes — what happens if the job is still running, if the prefix matches multiple jobs, or if no finished job exists — which matters for a tool whose whole contract is id selection.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the argument-selection rules. Slightly dense in the second sentence, but no filler and every clause carries routing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the core invocation paths are covered. Still incomplete for a job-selection tool: 'since' semantics and the behavior on ambiguous or non-finished job ids are unresolved, so an agent could call it correctly but not predict its edge-case behavior.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain job_id (full id or unique prefix) and include_events (returns stored events), but the 'since' parameter is entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving one of three parameters opaque.

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 and resource ('Return the captured output for a finished background job') with the scope qualifier 'finished'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming agy_read and agy_sessions, so an agent can route between them without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit selection rules: pass job_id (full or unique prefix) to target a job, omit it to fall back to the latest finished job from agy_sessions. It also names the alternative path for full event retrieval ('otherwise use agy_read'), which is exactly the when-to-use/when-to-use-something-else guidance the dimension asks for.

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