job_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the return shape, states that result/error are unset while the job is running (state-dependent behavior), and warns that discard frees the job and its cache entry once terminal — a genuinely non-obvious side effect. It omits error/not-found handling and any auth notes, keeping it at a strong 4 rather than 5.

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?

Three compact sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the return-shape and discard details. The inline brace notation for the return object is dense but readable.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly spells out the returned fields and their conditional presence. Combined with the discard semantics, an agent has enough to call it correctly; missing only invalid-job_id or failure-mode guidance.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does well for discard (frees terminal job and cache entry), but job_id is left entirely to the name and required list. Half the parameters are effectively explained, which fits the 'minimum viable' band.

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: fetch an async job's outcome. An agent can tell this apart from submission tools like async_demo_submit or render_photoreal_submit. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling job_status or job_list, which is the main gap.

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 concrete guidance for the discard parameter (frees a terminal job once you have it), but says nothing about when to prefer this over job_status or job_list, nor prerequisites such as holding a valid job_id. Usage is implied rather than declared.

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