Fetch job result (free)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the call does not delete the record, failure modes include job_result_incompatible for unreadable stored results, the envelope matches the job kind so callers should branch on 'tool', and the operation is free with no model call. These details go well beyond the annotation alone.

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 front-loaded with the core behavior and non-destructive guarantee, then efficiently covers usage conditions, failure modes, and the alternative deletion tool. Every sentence adds distinct value, and the detail parameter behavior is explained compactly.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not restate return values. It covers when to call, what kinds of jobs are supported, how to branch on the result, failure scenarios, the deletion alternative, and the detail option, making it fully contextual for an agent.

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%, and the schema already documents job_id, detail, and workspace_root with equivalent semantics. The description reinforces the 'summary'/'full' detail distinction but does not materially add parameter meaning beyond what the input schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Fetch a finished background Kimi job's result WITHOUT deleting the record.' It clearly distinguishes itself from kimi_job_consume_result and enumerates which async/sync job kinds it applies to, making sibling differentiation straightforward.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use when kimi_job_status reports result_available=true'), when not to use it (running/cancelled/timed-out/failed jobs), and which alternative to prefer when deletion is desired (kimi_job_consume_result). This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

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