Read the terminal ZCode task result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the TASK_NOT_FINISHED sentinel, explains that 'completed' reflects invocation/normalization rather than host acceptance, and flags files_changed/tests/decisions as unverified claims. It does not address permissions, idempotency, or any other error modes.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the core warning that 'completed' is not a host PASS is restated three separate ways across consecutive sentences. That redundancy inflates length without adding new information, and the grammar in one clause is garbled.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and the description instead covers the semantic traps an agent must know about terminal states and claim verification. It leaves the discovery path for task_id and any access prerequisites unstated.

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% for the single task_id parameter, and the description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing guidance for it. The parameter name is nearly self-explanatory, which keeps this above a 2, but nothing compensates for the documentation gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read the persisted TaskResult for a finished task') and states the pre-condition that yields TASK_NOT_FINISHED, which implicitly separates it from status-polling siblings like zcode_status. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing.

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?

It establishes that this tool applies to a 'finished task' and warns about interpreting 'completed', but never says when to prefer it over zcode_status or zcode_events, nor how to obtain the required task_id. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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