result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavior: it returns the message in full including the engine session, and an unsettled task yields status rather than an error. It stops short of permissions, size limits, or output format details, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two tight sentences with the primary return value front-loaded and the edge-case behavior second. Nothing is wasted, though the compactness is partly under-specification rather than pure efficiency.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the running-task fallback, which is the essential context. It omits any explanation of the task_id parameter and return format specifics that would otherwise be carried by an output schema.

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% and the single task_id parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description never mentions task_id or how to obtain it, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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 states a specific resource and scope: the full final message of a settled task plus the engine session it ran under. An agent can tell this retrieves a completed task's output, but the description never distinguishes it from siblings like check, wait, or list_tasks, which also concern task state.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named. The clause about running tasks implies a usage condition (call it when you want a result and accept status if unsettled), but that is inference, not instruction.

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