get_job_result

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by mentioning 'completed, partial or failed' states, which indicates what kind of data can be returned. However, it does not disclose other important behaviors like whether the tool waits for completion, error conditions, or pagination.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and to the point. Every word contributes to the purpose, with no unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 are presumably covered elsewhere. The description is minimal but provides the core purpose and a hint of behavioral scope (completed/partial/failed). However, it lacks context about how this tool fits with siblings like inspect_autorouter_result or get_job_status, making it slightly incomplete for selecting between them.

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 schema has one parameter (jobid) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no details about it. While the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not clarify the format, source, or relationship to external jobs beyond the tool 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns result data for external jobs, using a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('external-job result data'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_job_status (which focuses on status) and list_jobs (which lists jobs).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_job_status or inspect_autorouter_result. The context implies usage after an external job, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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