Run Result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read' is consistent with that. It adds useful context about the return content and the success precondition, but it does not disclose behavior on failed jobs or any other edge cases.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The action, object, and condition are all present and front-loaded, making it easy to parse.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile, an output schema covering return shape, and one clearly named parameter, the description is mostly sufficient. The main gap is explicit guidance for failed jobs, but that is minor for a simple read-only retrieval 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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain that job_id identifies the specific job whose run result should be read, leaving the only parameter to be inferred from its name and title.

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, 'Read', and names concrete outputs: 'normalized result and Markdown report'. Scoping it to 'a successful job' helps distinguish it from siblings like get_run_status and get_run_logs.

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?

'For a successful job' implies a precondition for using this tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. An agent must infer that get_run_status or get_run_logs are better suited for checking status or diagnosing failures.

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