get_analysis_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves a result directory and exactly four standard file paths, and that it applies to completed tasks. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., what happens if the task is incomplete) or any side effects, though the read-only nature is implied by '获取'.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the action and key result. Every word earns its place, with no repetition of schema information or filler.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, output schema present), so the description is minimally viable. However, it misses guidance on the relationship with sibling tools, such as using get_analysis_status to confirm completion before calling this, and it omits error context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter job_id, but it does not explain the parameter's format, source, or how to obtain it. The phrase 'completed task' hints that job_id should be a completed analysis job's ID, but that is minimal compensation.

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 uses a specific verb ('获取') and resource ('已完成任务的结果目录和四个标准文件路径'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_analysis_status (which reports status) and analyze_video (which starts analysis). The scope is precise: it returns paths for a completed task.

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?

It states the tool is for completed tasks, which implies it should be used after task completion, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or say to check status via get_analysis_status first. No clear when-not-to-use guidance or exclusions are provided.

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