get result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it looks at only the latest round and reports completion status plus final output, which is useful context. However, it does not explain the polling/waiting behavior implied by timeoutSeconds, nor what happens when the task is not yet complete — notable given idempotentHint=false.

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 compact sentence with the resource and outcome stated up front and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why guidance and polling semantics are missing.

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?

With four optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description should at minimum clarify what is returned (completion flag plus output) and how timeoutSeconds affects the call. It states the former implicitly but leaves the waiting behaviour and the incomplete-task case unexplained, so it is only adequate.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, making the baseline 3. The description's '最近一轮' loosely relates to the sinceMessageId baseline but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema. No extra meaning is contributed.

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 states a specific verb+resource: fetching the most recent round of task execution results for a given session, plus judging completion and extracting the final output. That is materially more informative than the bare 'get result' title. It stops short of naming a sibling (e.g. minimax_read_session, minimax_status, minimax_watch) that an agent might confuse it with.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The phrase '判断是否完成' implies this is the tool used to poll for completion, but the description never says that or points to alternatives such as minimax_watch or minimax_events. The agent must infer the routing decision from the name alone.

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