chatgpt_webui_ask_async_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It mentions that waiting is optional but does not describe what happens when the job is incomplete, whether the call returns current state, or how polling behaves beyond the schema definitions.

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 concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It states the core purpose in one sentence and adds the key optional behavior in a short second clause.

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 three-parameter tool, the description covers the basic purpose and optional waiting behavior. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits useful context about what the result looks like and how incomplete jobs behave, so it is only minimally viable.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a small amount of meaning by saying wait_timeout_ms waits for completion, but it does not go beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 clear action and resource: 'Get result for a background ask job.' It is specific enough for an agent to identify the tool's responsibility, though it does not explicitly contrast it with ask_async_status.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of ask_async_status or how it relates to ask_async_start. The only usage hint is the optional wait_timeout_ms, which is more about parameter behavior than tool selection.

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