get_job_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes fetching outputs and final state, which implies a read operation, but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the job is not finished. Adequate for a retrieval task but lacks depth.

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, no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the follow-up guidance is placed efficiently.

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?

The description covers what the tool returns (list of files, final state) and provides a follow-up for docking jobs. It lacks output schema and details on error handling or output format, but for a simple retrieval tool, it is reasonably 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but does not elaborate on job_id. The parameter is self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning or format details beyond the schema field name.

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 tool fetches outputs of a finished job, listing produced files and final state. It distinguishes from siblings like get_job_status (status only) and summarize_docking (follow-up for docking jobs).

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 explicitly tells when to follow up with summarize_docking for docking jobs, providing context and an alternative. It implies the tool is for finished jobs but does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as for running jobs.

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