Get a delegated task's output

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses the blocking behavior with wait_seconds and details what is returned (text, token usage, cost, session_id). However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only or what happens if the job is not finished when wait_seconds is not passed, leaving minor behavioral gaps.

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 short, dense sentences. The first states the core functionality and return fields, and the second provides the critical blocking behavior. No waste, information is front-loaded, and it is easy to scan.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns, the optional blocking behavior, and follow-up information. It does not address failure scenarios or the result when the job is incomplete without wait_seconds, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents job_id and wait_seconds. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies that the tool returns the final text of a delegated session along with token usage, cost, and session ID. It distinguishes itself from siblings like delegate_status (status checks) and delegate_followup (continuations) by focusing on retrieving the completed output, making its purpose 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 implies when to use it (when you need the final output) and mentions blocking with wait_seconds, but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like delegate_status or delegate_followup, nor does it state when not to use it. This is clear context without exclusions.

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