Get Vibecheck Result

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: the read is non-blocking, queued results are served from cache, pending requests return no answer, and 'live:' handles stay bound to the originating client. That is real operational context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three compact sentences with no filler; the retrieval constraint leads and the caching/pending caveat follows immediately. Slightly dense jargon keeps it from being maximally clear, but nothing is wasted.

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 values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers the remaining agent-facing questions (non-blocking, cached queued, unanswered pending, client-bound live handles) adequately for a one-parameter read.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as the opaque request_id returned by post_vibecheck_statement or request_vibecheck. The description only restates 'by request_id' and adds no format, provenance, or validity rules beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Read one exact proposition or immediate vibecheck by request_id'), so an agent knows this fetches a single stored result rather than a context or status object. However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_vibecheck_status or get_vibecheck_context, and the terms 'exact proposition' / 'immediate vibecheck' are domain jargon that is not defined here.

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?

Usage context is implied through the behavioral note ('queued is cached, and pending is not answered'), which tells the agent this call is safe to make at any point but may return nothing useful while work is pending. No alternative sibling is named and no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule is given, so the agent must infer the routing.

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