get_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it enumerates the return states (running vs finished) and the payload fields (status, exit code, stdout, stderr, duration), and interprets two terminal statuses as resource limits rather than crashes. It omits whether output is truncated, how long results are retained, and whether repeated calls are safe.

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 with the core purpose, then return payload, then the interpretation of failure statuses. Three short blocks, none redundant, every sentence earning its place.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, and the description does the work of documenting return shape and status semantics. The remaining gap is the parameter's origin/format and result retention, which matters for a polling tool but is secondary.

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 run_id has no description in the schema, so the description must compensate. It never mentions run_id, its format, or that it comes from start_run, leaving the sole parameter entirely undocumented outside its name.

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 ("Collect the result of a run") and adds the polling nuance ("or find out it is still going"). That inherently separates it from start_run/stop_run, though the description never names the siblings, so full differentiation credit is withheld.

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?

Gives clear context for when the tool is meaningful: while the run is in progress it reports "running", after completion it returns the report. It also explains what a timed_out/out_of_memory status implies for follow-up (retry with a larger budget). It does not explicitly say to poll repeatedly or name start_run/stop_run as alternatives.

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