agents_get_invocation_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It indicates results can be text OR files, which adds value, but doesn't specify what happens if the invocation hasn't completed, error behavior, or what the file results look like. The description does state the 'completed' precondition which is useful behavioral context.

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 captures both the purpose and the return content type (text/files). Zero wasted words, front-loaded with the core action. Ideal conciseness for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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 1 fully-documented parameter, an output schema present, and a clear single-sentence description covering what's retrieved and from what context, the tool is well-specified. The description could add what happens on a pending invocation, but the 'completed' qualifier plus the sibling status tool gives adequate context. Output schema handles return-value documentation.

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 single parameter invocation_id has 100% schema coverage with a clear description of what it is ('returned by agents_invoke_agent'). The description's 'completed invocation' framing adds context that the parameter must reference a finished invocation. With full schema coverage and only 1 parameter, there's little the description needs to add beyond what's provided.

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 what the tool does: retrieve text or file results from a completed agent or workflow invocation. It specifies the verb (retrieve), resource (invocation results), and distinguishes itself from sibling agents_get_invocation_status which checks status rather than retrieving results.

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 condition 'completed invocation' implies this is for results after completion, distinguishing from agents_get_invocation_status which checks status during execution. It doesn't explicitly reference the sibling status tool or state when NOT to use it, but the 'completed' qualifier provides useful contextual guidance.

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