Get a delegated task's output

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool blocks if wait_seconds is provided, and returns both the text and session_id. It does not discuss potential side effects, rate limits, or what happens if the job fails, but the blocking behavior is the key transparent element.

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 long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. There is no wasted text.

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?

The tool has only two parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, so its simplicity reduces the required completeness. The description adequately covers the inputs and the blocking behavior. It could mention what happens if the job hasn't started yet or if it fails, but given the low complexity, this is sufficient.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'job_id' is the collected delegation identifier and that 'wait_seconds' controls blocking up to a maximum. This clarifies the semantics beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('final text...plus session_id'), clarifying the precise output. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'delegate_status' (which likely returns status only) and 'delegate_start' (which starts work).

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 implies when to use this tool (after a delegation is created, to get final output) and mentions the optional wait_seconds for blocking behavior. However, it does not explicitly contrast with 'delegate_followup' or 'delegate_status'—though the context signals suggest those exist.

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