get_result_json

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it reads result.json but fails to disclose read-only nature, error handling (e.g., missing task_id), permission requirements, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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?

One concise sentence front-loads the primary function. No fluff, but could briefly mention what 'structured result.json' entails without becoming verbose.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose. However, missing behavioral context like error scenarios or output format reduces completeness. Moderately adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 100% with task_id described as 'Task ID'. Description adds context that result.json is structured and for deterministic acceptance, but does not elaborate on the parameter itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate as description provides some added context beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states it reads structured result.json for deterministic task acceptance. Verb 'Read' is specific, resource 'result.json' is precise, and purpose 'deterministic task acceptance' distinguishes it from general result retrieval tools like get_result.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like get_result or get_task_status. The context for 'deterministic task acceptance' is implied but not explained, leaving ambiguity.

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