ouroboros_job_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose what happens if the job is not complete, whether the result can be retrieved multiple times, or any error behavior. 'Get' suggests read-only, but no explicit safety or side-effect information is provided.

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, front-loaded sentence that is clear and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the core purpose.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description leaves gaps about return format and behavior for incomplete jobs. Given the many job-related siblings, more differentiation would improve completeness.

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 schema fully documents the only parameter (job_id as 'Job ID returned by a start tool'), and the description adds marginal context by linking it to a 'completed background job', but does not provide additional format or usage details beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('final output for a completed background job'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like job_status (status) and job_wait (waiting). The inclusion of 'completed' sets a condition that adds precision.

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 phrase 'for a completed background job' implies the tool should only be used after job completion, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like ouroboros_job_status or ouroboros_job_wait, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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