Docflow Get Review Result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the non-blocking nature ('without waiting') and enumerates meaningful status values, including pending, reviewing, and recognition_failed. It does not explicitly state that the call is read-only, but 'Get the current result' strongly implies it.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose and endpoint first, usage guidance second, and the status legend last. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy or filler.

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 status polling tool, the description covers the core call context, non-blocking behavior, and result statuses. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required; the main gap is parameter-level guidance, but the overall description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain task_id or workspace_id semantics, formats, or how they relate. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema field 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 'Get' with a specific resource 'result of a review task' and clarifies it is non-blocking ('without waiting'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like docflow_run_review and docflow_retry_review_task, which perform different actions.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: to check status of a previously submitted review or for manual polling. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'previously submitted review' phrasing implies the appropriate place in the workflow after submitting a review.

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