remote_job_result

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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declared, the description's main additional value is disclosing blocking behavior via wait and timeout, which annotations do not cover. It does not say what happens when the timeout expires (error, empty result, or partial output) or whether waiting holds a session, which matters for an agent deciding whether to block.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the modifier behavior. No filler, though it is terse enough that some needed detail is omitted rather than trimmed.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not describe return values, which lowers the bar. Still, for a blocking retrieval tool with three undocumented parameters, the missing timeout-default semantics and timeout-expiry behavior leave gaps an agent would want closed.

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 carry the parameter burden. It explains wait and that timeout bounds the wait, but leaves job_id undefined and does not clarify that the timeout default of 0 means no timeout.

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 ('Get a job result'), which is clear enough to act on. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as remote_job_status or remote_job_list, leaving the result-vs-status distinction to inference.

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 mention of wait=true implies this is called to retrieve output after a job has been started, which gives useful implied usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus remote_job_status or remote_job_list, and no stated prerequisites such as whether the job must be finished first.

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