Get image result

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

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, closed-world operation, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral information: the call blocks for a limited time and is a polling primitive that must be repeated. It does not describe what is returned or how non-running terminal states are surfaced, which is a modest remaining 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the retry rule. There is no boilerplate or redundant restatement of the title.

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, so return values need not be explained, and the polling contract is fully conveyed. The only omission is how error or failed-completion states differ from "running", which would help an agent decide whether to retry.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already explaining that job_id is the value returned by generate_image or edit_image. The description repeats that provenance without adding format, validation, or lookup semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Wait for and return the result of a job") and scopes it to jobs produced by generate_image or edit_image, which cleanly separates it from those two sibling tools. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition — use it only for jobs the generating tools reported as "running" — and prescribes the follow-up action (call again if still running). It stops short of an explicit exclusion such as behavior for already-completed or failed jobs, so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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