get-task-result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about availability for completed tasks, which isn't obvious from the schema. However, it doesn't describe other behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., what happens if the task isn't completed), response format details, or potential limitations (e.g., size constraints on output).

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 appropriately sized with two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and follow with a critical usage constraint. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving task results), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the purpose and a key constraint, but doesn't explain the return values (e.g., structure of stdout/stderr) or other behavioral aspects, leaving the agent with incomplete information for reliable use.

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%, with the parameter 'taskId' fully documented in the schema as 'The task ID'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'full result of a task including stdout/stderr output', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-task-status' by specifying it retrieves the complete output rather than just status information. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., 'get-task-stats'), which prevents a perfect score.

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 description provides clear context with 'Only available for completed tasks', which helps determine when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-task-status' for pending tasks. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions for other scenarios, but the completion requirement offers practical guidance for appropriate usage.

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