Результат запуску

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only mentions the returned contents and not read-only behavior, prerequisites, output format, or error conditions. It also implies the prompt is always included ('разом із промптом'), while the schema indicates the prompt is only added when with_prompt is true.

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 sentence with no filler, and the key idea is front-loaded. It loses a point because the noun-phrase style and ambiguity about the prompt weaken its structural clarity.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin to support correct invocation. It omits how run_id is supplied, whether the response is raw output or a structured object, and whether the prompt inclusion is conditional, leaving an agent to guess about the with_prompt behavior.

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 50%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented run_id, but it does not explain how to obtain or format run_id. The with_prompt parameter is adequately described in the schema, and the description only loosely echoes that concept without clarifying the optionality.

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 that the tool exposes the full run result and the prompt that produced it, so the resource and payload are clear. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'retrieve' and does not directly differentiate from sibling tools such as glm_status or glm_list_runs, though 'full result' hints at that distinction.

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 glm_result versus glm_status, glm_wait, or glm_list_runs. The description only defines what the result is, not the context in which an agent should call it.

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