agy_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default behavior (latest finished job) and the include_events toggle, but does not explain error handling or what happens if no finished job exists. It is adequate but not rich in 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words; every sentence provides actionable guidance, including a sibling reference.

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 main use case and directs to agy_read for full logs, but the unmentioned 'since' parameter and lack of edge-case details make it slightly incomplete. The presence of an output schema covers return values, so this is a minor gap.

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. It explains job_id and include_events but completely omits the 'since' parameter (integer with default 0). This leaves a meaningful gap in understanding the tool's full parameter set.

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 the tool's function: 'Return the captured output for a finished background job.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly contrasts with agy_read for the full event log, effectively distinguishing it from siblings.

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 provides explicit usage instructions: pass job_id to select a job or omit it to use the latest finished job from agy_sessions, and set include_events=true to also return stored events. It also directs users to agy_read for the full event log, offering clear alternatives.

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