get_job_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the presigned URLs and 15-minute TTL, and that it errors on in-progress jobs. It does not explicitly state read-only or idempotent, but the retrieval nature is clear.

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 sentences, no waste. The first sentence states the main purpose, and the second adds two key behavioral constraints (TTL and error condition).

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers return type (URLs and metadata), a critical constraint (TTL), and error behavior. Minor omission: could mention that the URLs are temporary and must be used promptly, but still solid.

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?

The schema already describes jobId as 'completed screenshot job'. The tool description adds value by noting the output includes presigned URLs with a 15-minute TTL and an error condition, enhancing the parameter's practical context.

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 'retrieve' and specific resource 'screenshot URLs and metadata for a completed job'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_job_status (which likely returns status only) and list_jobs.

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 that the tool is for completed jobs and will error if the job is still in progress, implying when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list provides context.

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