get_task_result

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with (a 'get' operation is consistent). The description adds context that the task must be 'completed' for a result to exist, implying that incomplete/running tasks won't yield results via this tool. This is a meaningful behavioral constraint beyond the annotation. Siblings like abort_task and run_agent_task suggest a task lifecycle where this tool is the terminal read step.

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 that states exactly what the tool does with no filler. Every word earns its place. This is appropriately front-loaded and minimal.

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 result-fetch tool with a fully documented schema (100% coverage, no output schema), the description plus annotations cover the essential contract: what it returns (result of a completed task), key input (taskId), and optional behavior (includeSteps with default). The absence of an output schema reduces the descriptive burden. A minor gap is not noting what happens for a task in progress or an invalid ID, but for a simple fetch tool this is 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 coverage is 100% with both parameters documented: taskId is described as 'returned by run_agent_task' and includeSteps has a default of true. The description itself adds no parameter-specific detail beyond 'by its task ID,' relying on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and explicitly documents both parameters well.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Get the detailed result of a completed Agent task by its task ID.' It states the resource (task result), the action (get), and the identifier (task ID). It doesn't differentiate from siblings like get_latest_task, which retrieves tasks but for a different scope (latest vs. by ID). A small mention of 'completed' adds scope but no explicit sibling distinction, so 4 rather than 5.

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 implies usage for retrieving completed task results by task ID, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. get_latest_task or when not to use it. No alternative tools are named. The context (completed task, task ID from run_agent_task) is implied by the parameter description in the schema rather than stated in the tool description.

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