tandem_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it warns that 'completed is turn completion, not proof of success', distinguishes 'answer holds the requested text; summary only describes the work', and explains truncation handling. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 or four compact sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then precise warnings and routing instructions. No filler or repeated schema boilerplate; each sentence adds new 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?

Given an output schema exists and the safety-relevant behavior is disclosed, the description covers the essential call semantics, truncation path, and details switch. It is only slightly incomplete because task_id provenance is not described and the exact relationship to sibling tools is left implicit.

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 adds semantics for details ('details=true includes the full answer/report/contract/diagnostics') and wait_seconds (0..25), but it never explains task_id, the only required parameter, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Get the actual answer, work outcome and next_action.' It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by stating questions return immediately and by routing artifact reads to answer_artifact_id, so an agent can tell it apart from tandem_read_artifact and tandem_wait.

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?

It gives clear context on when to use the tool ('Questions return immediately', retrieve answer/outcome) and an explicit condition for routing: 'When answer_truncated, read answer_artifact_id.' It does not name sibling tools directly or discuss when tandem_continue/tandem_wait would be preferable, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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