gateway.tasks_result

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds value by disclosing that output redaction and truncation options are applied, but it omits important behavioral details such as whether the call waits for task completion, error handling for missing/pending tasks, or permission requirements.

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 a single sentence with a front-loaded verb, no redundant words, and all information is directly relevant to the tool's purpose.

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, and the description does not explain return values, error conditions, or the relationship to the asynchronous invoke flow. Given the existence of siblings like tasks_get and tasks_list, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to reliably choose and use this tool.

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% and the description does not explain the parameters server_name, task_id, or the options object beyond referencing gateway.invoke for redaction/truncation. While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds minimal semantic value and does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource as a 'downstream MCP task result', which distinguishes it from siblings like tasks_list or tasks_get. It also references gateway.invoke to clarify the output processing scope.

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 for retrieving results from a downstream MCP task and mentions the same redaction/truncation options as gateway.invoke, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tasks_get, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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