Get Agent Job Result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond those annotations by disclosing that the call can return a 'pending' variant — signaling the job may not be finished yet — as well as terminal states. It does not cover error or not-found behavior, but with the annotation bar lowered, the added variant context earns a 4.

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 a single 12-word sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource immediately. Every word earns its place; brevity here is achieved without redundancy, even though it sacrifices some contextual richness that other dimensions capture.

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?

An output schema exists (covering return values) and annotations fully cover the safety profile, so the description need not repeat those. However, it leaves the relationship to agent_status unexplained, uses the undefined term 'durable result variant', and gives no hint about how to obtain job_id or handle a pending result — clear gaps for a tool with a required nested workspace object.

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 only 50%: workspace has a schema description, but job_id has none, and the tool description adds nothing about either parameter. job_id is a required, unformatted string whose provenance (e.g., from agent_start) is never explained, and the description does not compensate for this gap. The workspace object is at least partially covered by the schema, but the critical job_id parameter remains semantically undocumented.

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 verb ('Return') and resource (the durable result variant of an agent job) and enumerates the four possible variants (pending, succeeded, failed, cancelled), which helps distinguish it from siblings like agent_status. However, the phrase 'durable result variant' is internal jargon and the description never explicitly says it is fetching the outcome/payload of a job started by agent_start, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus its natural alternatives among the siblings, particularly agent_status (which presumably reports job state) and agent_list. The description neither states when polling is appropriate, how the 'pending' state should be handled, nor when another tool should be chosen instead. Usage is only weakly implied by the name and title.

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