get_task_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It transparently discloses the possible statuses ('running', 'done', 'error'), how output is captured, and that error tracebacks are included on failure. It does not mention polling semantics or side effects, but for a simple result-fetch tool this is adequate.

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 structured with Args and Returns sections, uses concise language, and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds information without verbosity.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter source, and return shape. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly, especially given the clear relation to execute_code_async.

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 has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description compensates by fully explaining task_id as 'The task ID returned by execute_code_async'. This gives a clear source and meaning, though no additional constraints or formats are provided.

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 clearly states the tool's function: retrieving status and output of a background task. It names the specific originating tool (execute_code_async) and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on the async task lifecycle.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for background tasks started by execute_code_async, giving clear context for use. It does not explicitly contrast with execute_code or list exclusions, but the async-task framing makes the intended usage obvious.

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