get_task_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does explain the main conditional behavior (completed vs running), but it omits details about wait semantics, error cases, and what 'current status' includes. It is not misleading, but it is not comprehensive.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the conditional behavior is stated in the second sentence efficiently.

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 tool with full schema coverage, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient. A minor gap is that the return format of the final result or status is not described, but the core calling requirements are covered.

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% because both task_id and wait have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 the tool retrieves the final result of a completed task, and it adds the conditional behavior of returning current status if the task is still running. It is specific about the resource (task result) but does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_task_status.

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 conditional phrase '如果任务仍在运行，返回当前状态' implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer get_task_status or when waiting is appropriate. Usage context is implied rather than clearly stated.

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