get_agent_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well by explaining the block parameter, timeout default, and return of 'task status and result if completed'. It does not cover edge cases like timeout behavior or errors, but provides solid behavioral guidance for a simple polling tool.

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, front-loading the purpose, then listing parameters with defaults in a clear structure, and ending with return behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant text.

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 simple async result retrieval tool with only 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameters, blocking behavior, and return value. It lacks explicit error-handling details but is otherwise complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 the baseline is 3. The description repeats parameter information already in the schema (e.g., task_id from call_agent_async, block default false) without adding new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 result from async agent task' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that initiate agent calls. It explicitly references call_agent_async, establishing the relationship and making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage after call_agent_async by requiring a task_id from that tool, which provides clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for sync calls), but the async-specific wording and companion sibling names make the intended use evident.

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