vibe_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose real behavioral traits: the summary is explicitly 'unverified' (a trust caveat) and the diff is 'capped' when diff=true (a size limit). It omits error behavior when job_id is unknown or the job is incomplete, which keeps it below a 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?

A single dense sentence with the returned payload front-loaded and the diff flag explained last; there is no redundant or filler 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return value, and it enumerates the returned fields plus the optional diff. Complete enough to call correctly, with only edge-case/error behavior and sibling routing left unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the key optional flag: 'diff=true appends the diff (capped)' explains both effect and limit. job_id is only implicitly defined as identifying the job, leaving one parameter thinly covered.

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 states a specific resource ('Outcome of a job') and enumerates exactly what the outcome contains: summary, diffstat, added files, scope violations, tokens, cost. That is far more concrete than the bare name, though it never explicitly names how it differs from siblings like vibe_wait or vibe_apply.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call this to retrieve a job's outcome, presumably after it completes, but the description never says whether it works on a still-running job or how it relates to vibe_wait/vibe_apply. There are no explicit when-not conditions.

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