umlforge_get_result

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only cover read-only/safety hints) by disclosing polling semantics: waits ~45 seconds, may reply 'still generating' again with the same job id, and results are retained for one hour. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent must know to invoke it correctly and to retry.

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 one-line purpose, then scannable WHEN/NOT FOR sections and the polling behavior. Every sentence carries actionable information; nothing is padded.

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, so return values need not be described. Combined with the polling/timeout/retention details and the job_id origin, the description covers everything needed to call and re-call this 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 coverage is 0% and the schema only labels the field 'Job Id'. The description compensates by telling the agent where the value comes from (the job id returned in the 'still generating' reply), which is the one piece of semantics that matters here.

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+resource with scope ('Retrieve the result of a UML Forge generation that was still running'). The 'still running' qualifier distinguishes it from the umlforge_* generation siblings that actually produce diagrams.

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?

Explicit USE THIS WHEN (the 'still generating' reply, fetching an earlier result) and NOT FOR routing (starting a diagram vs. umlforge_suggest for tool choice). The agent is told exactly which condition selects this tool and which siblings to use otherwise.

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