remote_job_result

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

The description only explains the wait and timeout parameters, but fails to disclose what happens if the job is still running when wait=false, what timeout=0 means, or whether the tool blocks indefinitely. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 primary action. No wasted words, and the wait/timeout hint is presented efficiently.

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 no annotations and only a bare-bones wait/timeout hint, the description fails to cover edge cases like premature result retrieval, timeout expiration, or job failure. The output schema may define return values, but behavioral context around waiting is underspecified.

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 compensate. It clarifies that wait=true enables waiting and timeout bounds it in seconds, but does not explain the meaning of timeout=0 or the behavior of wait=false, leaving important parameter semantics ambiguous.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'job result', clearly indicating the tool fetches the outcome of a job. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like remote_job_status, but the resource type is distinct enough to infer its purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as remote_job_status or remote_job_list. It gives parameter-level advice about setting wait=true and using timeout, but lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical workflow placement.

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