pro_result

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description does not need to repeat safety basics. It adds meaningful context by clarifying that retrieval does not rerun CAD and that polling avoids image delivery, while image retrieval should happen once.

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 two compact sentences and is front-loaded with the core retrieval purpose. Every phrase contributes either purpose or usage guidance, with no filler.

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 simple retrieval tool this covers the main purpose and image-delivery behavior, and annotations cover safety. However, with no output schema it does not explain what 'full evidence' contains, and it leaves artifact_id and failure conditions unclear.

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 0%, so the description must explain the three parameters. It partially clarifies kind=image versus polling, but operation_id and artifact_id remain unexplained, including how artifact_id relates to retrieving a single image.

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 a specific verb and resource: retrieve an existing operation's full evidence or one image without rerunning CAD. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as pro_operation or pro_operations.

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 sentence 'Polling is image-free; use kind=image once for delivery' gives useful guidance for the image path and polling. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor what preconditions must hold before calling it.

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