forgehand_result

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

Annotations already signal readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description's 'Return' is consistent with those. It adds the nuance of 'compact' receipt but does not disclose non-obvious behaviors such as error handling, whether missing IDs return null/error, or any polling semantics.

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 an eight-word single sentence that states the core operation immediately. There is no filler, redundant restatement of the tool name, or optional background that could be dropped.

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 single-parameter read with rich annotations and an output schema, this is minimally viable. However, it stope short of explaining how the task_id relates to forgehand_delegate or forgehand_tasks, and whether a receipt exists immediately after delegation or after completion, leaving contextual gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description shoulders the burden of explaining task_id, but 'by ID' adds little beyond the parameter's own name and title 'Task Id'. It does not describe the ID format, where to obtain it, or any constraints, so parameter semantics remain under-specified.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Return') and noun phrase ('one compact task receipt') with a clear qualifier ('by ID'), which plainly identifies what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools like forgehand_tasks (likely listing) and forgehand_health by focusing on a single item lookup.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies it should be used when the caller already has a task_id and wants a single receipt, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this over forgehand_tasks or forgehand_delegate. No alternatives or exclusion criteria are given, leaving usage to inference.

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