get_response

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. It does not say whether the call blocks, how long it waits, what happens on timeout, whether repeated calls are safe, or whether partial results are returned — the key facts an agent needs for an async wait 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?

One short sentence with no filler, appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool. The vague 'a little longer' is an imprecision problem rather than a length problem.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a polling/waiting tool the description should cover blocking behavior, timeout handling, and expected retry pattern. Those omissions are material given complexity and zero annotation coverage.

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% and the single response_id parameter is documented as 'the response_id ask_marvin returned.' The description adds nothing beyond that provenance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 conveys that this retrieves the answer of an ask_marvin request that is still running, which ties it to a named sibling. But it never states a concrete verb-resource pair ('get the response/result') and 'wait a little longer' leaves the actual operation ambiguous — it could be a blocking wait, a poll, or a status check.

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?

Use is implied: call this after ask_marvin hands back a run that is not finished. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of cancel_response as the abandoning alternative, and no indication of how many times to poll or whether to stop.

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