connections_get_user_result

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get result' which implies a read operation, but it does not mention whether the job may still be running, whether the tool blocks or errors on incomplete jobs, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's runtime behavior.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words, which is efficient. It does not waste space, though it is minimal to the point of lacking necessary context. It is appropriately short for a simple tool, but could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool is a 'get result' operation likely tied to an asynchronous fetch job, the description omits crucial context such as how to check if the job is complete, what happens if the jobId is invalid, and the expected format of the result. With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to fully guide an agent in correct invocation.

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?

The input schema already documents the parameter 'jobId' with a description, and coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so it aligns with the baseline score of 3 for cases where schema coverage is high and the description adds no additional insight.

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 specific verb ('Get result') and a specific resource ('user connections fetch job'), making it clear what operation is performed. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool connections_get_node_result, which is analogous for node jobs, so it is not fully distinguishable without relying on the name.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool or how it relates to connections_fetch_by_user. While the parameter schema hints that a jobId comes from connections_fetch_by_user, there is no statement about polling, waiting for completion, or alternatives like connections_get_node_result. This leaves the usage context largely implicit.

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