get_activity_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It only says 'Get the result' without disclosing that the tool may block waiting for the result (given the optional timeout parameter). Key behavioral traits like potential waiting, error conditions, or idempotency are not mentioned.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Perfectly concise for the information provided.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the tool's behavior (e.g., waiting for result), the format of the returned result, or how to interpret the parameters. A more complete description should clarify the process and potential states.

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% with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., activity_id, run_id, timeout). The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. No additional semantics are provided.

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 'Get the result of a standalone activity' clearly states the action (Get) and the resource (result of a standalone activity). It distinguishes from sibling tools like describe_activity (which provides metadata) and get_workflow_result (which is for workflows). However, it could be slightly more specific about what 'result' means (e.g., output or status).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, there is no mention of when to prefer get_activity_result over describe_activity or get_workflow_result. Implicitly, one uses it to retrieve the result, but explicit context is missing.

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