cortex_get_result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond them: the exact return shape, validation against per-kind schemas, and the privacy restriction on raw artifacts. This helps the agent understand what to expect and what is deliberately unavailable.

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 three sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, the return shape is given immediately, and the raw-artifact caveat earns its place by managing expectations. Every sentence carries useful 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential contextual needs: return shape, accepted result kinds, and exclusion of raw artifacts. It could additionally explain status semantics (e.g., pending/failed states), but this is a minor gap given the explicit return shape and enumerations.

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 documents job_id with an example ('ctxjob_123'), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not add significant parameter-level semantics beyond mentioning job_id in the return shape. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 verb and resource: 'Get a Cortex job's structured result.' It further distinguishes itself by stating what it returns and, importantly, what it does not return (raw artifacts), separating it from any raw-data or other Cortex job tools.

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 clearly communicates when to use this tool: when a structured result for a Cortex job is needed. It also gives an explicit limitation—raw artifacts are not returned—signaling when not to use it. However, it stops short of naming a specific alternative tool for retrieving raw artifacts, so it is not a full 5.

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