get_watch_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the asynchronous nature (awaiting result) and the null return while waiting, but does not disclose whether the tool is idempotent, if repeated calls are safe, or if there are any side effects. More behavioral context is needed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and a key behavioral note. No redundant words; every sentence adds value.

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 the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it could be more complete by mentioning that it is a non-blocking poll, the expected response format beyond null, or how it relates to other tools like set_watch_output.

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?

The input schema has one parameter with 100% coverage in its description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Thus a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves the result of a watch_session. The verb '获取' (get) and resource '后台监听结果' (background monitoring result) are specific. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like poll_session, but the pairing with watch_session is contextually evident.

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 indicates that null means still waiting, which implies it is meant to be called after watch_session. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like poll_session, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions.

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