Retrieve the full execution report for a completed background job by its ID, including status, duration, step trajectory, and final answer.
Fetch the full execution report and final output of a background job once completed. Returns status, duration, full step trajectory, and final answer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | The Job ID to fetch results for. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool returns status, duration, trajectory, and final answer, and 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not describe behavior when the job is not yet complete, authentication requirements, or side-effect guarantees beyond the implied read.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately names the action and result, then briefly lists return contents. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, precondition, and key returned fields. It does not discuss error cases or whether to poll with a status tool first, but it is essentially complete for a simple result-fetch tool.
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 schema already documents job_id at 100% coverage, so the description is not required to add much. It adds no extra detail about the ID's format, where to get it, or lifecycle, but for a single straightforward identifier parameter this is acceptable. Baseline 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 states a specific action ('Fetch the full execution report and final output') and a specific resource ('background job'), making the purpose clear. The 'once completed' qualifier also hints at the distinction from status-checking siblings, though it never names them or contrasts the two explicitly.
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 temporal guidance: use this tool after a background job has completed. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives such as antigravity_job_status for checking progress, nor does it state 'do not call before completion,' but the precondition is inferable and not misleading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.