wisepanel_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies this is a read-only operation ('retrieve'), which is helpful, but doesn't specify other traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The description adds some context about when data is available, but lacks details on response format or potential side effects.

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 concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose and usage well, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format or error cases. Since no output schema exists, the description could benefit from mentioning what the 'full result' includes, but it's adequate for basic use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'run_id' parameter documented as 'The run ID'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining what a run ID is or where to find it. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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's purpose: 'Retrieve the full result of a completed Wisepanel deliberation.' This specifies the verb ('retrieve') and resource ('full result of a completed Wisepanel deliberation'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wisepanel_poll' or 'wisepanel_list_runs', which could provide overlapping functionality.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: 'Only needed if you did not poll the run to completion (e.g., a run from a previous session). If you polled it live, you already have the data.' This clearly states when to use this tool (for previously completed runs not polled live) and when not to use it (if already polled), effectively distinguishing it from alternatives like 'wisepanel_poll'.

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