get_task_result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds ordering (oldest first), payload composition (raw agent report, immutable handoff package, options, observed evidence), and relative size versus get_task_status. It stops short of pagination, limits, or truncation behavior for what is described as a large response.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and payload contents, then the routing alternatives. Dense but every clause carries information; the multi-clause sentence listing record components is slightly heavy but not padding.

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?

An output schema exists and the description still declares what the record contains, its ordering, and its relative size versus a sibling, which is what an agent needs to decide to call it. Nothing material is missing for a two-parameter read tool.

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 both parameters are documented there, including the 'omit task_id to use the current workstream task' default, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a loose hint about execution_id lookup and does not clarify parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the full, unsummarized record of every execution of a task') plus scope details (oldest first, raw report, handoff package, host-observed evidence). It explicitly contrasts with get_task_status and get_task_evaluations, so an agent can pick it without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Gives both when-to-use ('audit what an agent actually did', 'look up an execution_id') and when-not-to-use with named alternatives ('for the current state use get_task_status, for scored quality get_task_evaluations'). No inference required.

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