alefba_get_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the async polling behavior: returns {state} if running, full result when done; wait=true blocks server-side. However, it does not mention error cases like invalid task_id or authentication needs, limiting transparency.

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?

The description is concise with no extraneous sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and includes bilingual text. Minor improvement could be more structured bullet points, but it remains clear and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the core usage. It explains the async result retrieval and blocking option. Not fully comprehensive about possible states or output schema details, but sufficient for basic usage.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: task_id (from async read), wait (optional, default false, for blocking), instance (optional, defaults to default). This adds essential meaning beyond the JSON 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?

The description clearly states 'Fetch or poll the result of an async document read', specifying the verb 'fetch/poll' and the resource 'result of an async document read'. It distinguishes from siblings like alefba_read_document by explicitly linking to its async invocation.

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 explains when to use the tool: 'Pass a task_id returned by alefba_read_document(wait=false)'. It provides usage context by describing the polling behavior and the option to block with wait=true. No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the guidance is clear.

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