get_async_result

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the call is read-only, what happens if the task is pending or fails, any authentication requirements, or rate limits. Critical behavioral traits are missing.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence with two clear parts. It is front-loaded with the purpose and immediately provides usage context. No words are wasted.

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 tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It omits details about the result format, possible statuses (e.g., pending, success, failure), and error handling. For a polling tool, such context is important for correct usage.

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 already covers the parameter 'task_id' with a clear description, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds minimal new meaning, only reinforcing that the ID comes from generate_image_async. Thus, the description does not significantly enhance the schema's explanation.

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 action ('Retrieve the result') and the resource ('asynchronous image generation task'), and it explicitly links to the sibling tool 'generate_image_async', differentiating it from synchronous or video counterparts.

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 specifies when to use this tool: after calling generate_image_async and using its task ID. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools for different scenarios.

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