askew_get_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's asynchronous behavior (status first, result when finished), the decrypted nature of the result, the long-poll capability up to 60 seconds, and the expected output components (status, result text, timeline). This is rich behavioral context, though it omits error handling, auth, and rate-limit details.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage condition, and output summary. The most relevant information is front-loaded, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description compensates by spelling out the return content (status, result text, timeline) and the state transitions. It also references the companion tool askew_run and the condition that triggers this call. It stops short of covering edge cases like invalid job ids or terminal failure states, but for this tool's moderate complexity it is nearly complete.

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 100%, and both parameters already have helpful descriptions (jobId from askew_run, wait with 0-60 range and default). The description adds 'Set wait to long-poll up to 60 seconds', but this largely mirrors the schema's 'Seconds to long-poll for a terminal status'. It does not meaningfully extend the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Return'), a specific resource ('the current status and, when finished, the decrypted result of a job'), and ties it to askew_run. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools, especially askew_run, by defining it as the follow-up/status retrieval counterpart.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use it when askew_run returned status unknown or pending'. It also gives a concrete example (wait=0 or slow phone) and explains how to configure the wait parameter. It lacks an explicit 'do not use when...' or named alternative, but the condition is clear enough.

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