Get generation result

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

Annotations already cover the read-only and open-world profile, and the description adds real value on top: it explains the wait-limit ceiling, the polling retry pattern, and that the call is free. It does not describe what the returned payload contains, but with no output schema the cost/wait context is the more useful disclosure.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the collection scenario before the retry and cost caveats. Every clause carries information an agent needs; no filler.

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 read-only polling tool with no output schema, the definition covers the trigger, retry behavior, wait semantics and cost. The only minor gap is not hinting at what the result contains, which is acceptable given output is untyped.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented and the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by tying processing_url to its origin (returned by a generation tool) and noting the server-side wait limit that governs the wait flag.

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?

States a specific verb (Collect) and resource (the result of a Luw.ai generation) plus the exact trigger condition (a job that was still processing). It clearly distinguishes itself from the generation siblings, which produce work rather than retrieve it.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (when a generation tool returned a processing_url because the job outlasted its wait), what to do if it is still running (call again), and what not to do (never re-run a generation instead). Nothing is left to inference.

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