safe_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only describes the output and does not mention side effects, idempotency, authentication, or rate limits. The lack of behavioral context is a notable gap.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value—no filler or redundancy. Exceptionally concise and effective.

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 has no output schema and two well-documented parameters, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It explains what the output excludes but does not detail the output structure or behavior. For a simple tool, it meets minimum viability but leaves room for improvement.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (task_id and max_items). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which already explains the parameters well. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns a 'low-noise structured task result summary' and specifies what is excluded (full logs, markdown, diff content). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_result, safe_diff_summary, and get_task_summary by emphasizing conciseness and safety.

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 implies when to use this tool—when a concise, clean summary is needed—but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. The exclusion of logs, markdown, and diff content offers clear context for usage.

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