get_task_result_tool

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

The description discloses that the result is empty and pending while the task is running, and to check task_status. However, it does not cover error handling, failure cases, or return format details, placing a moderate transparency burden given no annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and adding essential nuance about pending state and observable. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 a simple tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers result retrieval, pending status, and optional observable. It could mention error handling or alternative status checks, but is largely complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially by explaining the observable parameter (referencing estimate_tool format) but does not explain task_id beyond implication. This adds some value but leaves room for improvement.

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 retrieves the result of a task, differentiating it from siblings like get_task_status_tool or get_task_log_tool. The verb 'Get' and resource 'result of a task' are specific and unambiguous.

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 advises checking task_status for the current state and mentions passing an observable for expectation values, referencing a sibling format. It provides clear usage context but lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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