Read local generation result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: that dropping a poll does not cancel generation, and that job state/output is 'retained'. It could say more about what happens after a job expires or completes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action first and then the key behavioral caveat, with no filler. It is efficient but arguably too terse to be maximally useful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only/idempotent profile. The description adds the one surprising behavior an agent needs (poll disconnect is harmless), though the routing relationship to local_generate's job_id could be clearer.

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 100%, so job_id, context_id, wait_seconds, and capability_token are already documented in the schema (including the wait_seconds bounds and its non-dispatch semantics). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Read retained job state/output'), which is clearly distinguishable from siblings like local_generation_cancel and local_inference_status. It does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Mentioning that 'disconnecting a poll never cancels generation' implies this is the polling/read path after local_generate, but the description never states when to use it versus local_inference_status, local_generate, or local_generation_cancel. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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