Plecs Task Result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: large payloads are returned as a summary plus a saved file path, which tells the agent not to expect the full result inline. It does not mention error behavior for unfinished tasks, but the disclosure it does make is valuable.

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 sentence with the core action front-loaded and the payload caveat parenthetically attached. Nothing extraneous and nothing buried.

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-value structure is covered, and the description usefully flags the summary-plus-path fallback. However, for a task-result retrieval tool it omits the key operational facts: where task_id comes from and whether the result is consumed or persists after fetching.

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, so the schema itself says nothing about its format or origin. The description only implies task_id identifies a finished task and does not say where to obtain it (e.g., from plecs_submit or plecs_task). Minimum-viable at best.

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: 'Fetch a finished task's result.' This distinguishes it from the task-management siblings (plecs_task, plecs_tasks, plecs_check), though it never names them explicitly. An agent can tell what it returns 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?

The word 'finished' implies the task must already be complete, which is a useful precondition, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus plecs_task or plecs_check, and no guidance on what happens if the task is still running. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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