Read the terminal ZCode task result

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the TASK_NOT_FINISHED error condition, the exact meaning of status 'completed' (invocation and report normalization finished, not master acceptance), and that files_changed/tests/decisions are unverified normalized claims. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a read tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and terminal-state gating, and most sentences earn their place. However, the 'completed is not a master-accepted PASS' warning is restated twice in near-identical phrasing, which is mild redundancy.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema (which already documents the return shape), the description supplies everything else an agent needs: when it succeeds, when it errors, and how to interpret the result fields. Given no annotations, this is 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter (task_id) is never mentioned in the description, so nothing explains where the id comes from, its accepted format, or whether it references a task handle returned elsewhere. For a 1-param schema with no documentation, the description fails to compensate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the persisted TaskResult') and scopes it to a 'finished task' / terminal state, which separates it from status-, events-, and progress-oriented siblings. An agent can identify the retrieval role without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context for use: only meaningful after the task reaches a terminal state, and it explicitly notes it returns TASK_NOT_FINISHED otherwise. It also warns the caller to verify independently. It does not name an alternative tool for the pre-terminal case (e.g., zcode_status or zcode_progress_probe), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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