Read Run Task Result

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavior traits: it reads saved results for terminal states (completed/failed/blocked/cancelled), and it explicitly notes it does not duplicate the report in structured content. This provides useful behavioral nuance about what the tool returns versus structured content.

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?

Two sentences, efficient and front-loaded. The core purpose is stated in the first sentence, and the exclusions in the second. No wasted words. Could arguably merge ideas more tightly, but it's appropriately concise.

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 an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the description doesn't need to explain return values or parameter mechanics. It covers the tool's purpose, scope across various terminal states, and clarifies the non-duplication of structured content. For a tool with rich schema and output schema support, this is adequately complete.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters with meaningful descriptions (run_id, max_chars, workspace_id, conversation_id). The description adds context that run_id comes from start_run_task, bash, or run_validation, which is a slight enrichment, but overall the description doesn't add substantial meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb (Read), the resource (saved result for terminal durable run), and the scope (completed, failed, blocked, or cancelled long bash/run_validation commands). It also distinguishes itself by noting it does not duplicate the report in structured content, differentiating it from sibling tools like run_validation and publish_task_report.

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 description specifies when to use it (read saved result for terminal durable runs, including long bash/run_validation commands). It notes what it does NOT do (does not duplicate the report in structured content), providing partial exclusion guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools like read_acceptance_result or acceptance_status for comparison when a sibling would be more appropriate.

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