subagent_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return contents but says nothing about failure modes—e.g., behavior when the job is not yet finished, whether it blocks, or error/auth requirements—which is a meaningful gap for a result-retrieval tool.

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?

A single short fragment with no wasted words, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient front-loading. It is not a sentence and carries no lead action verb.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must cover behavior and returns; it lists return contents but omits preconditions (job must be finished), failure behavior, and the meaning of max_chars. For a 2-parameter result tool this is inadequate.

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 only 50%: job_id is documented ('Job ID returned by subagent_start'), but max_chars has no description despite default/min/max constraints. The description adds no parameter meaning (no mention of truncation via max_chars), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names what the tool returns (final answer, outcome, account, session, cost) and scopes it to a 'finished job,' which distinguishes it from status/wait siblings that deal with in-progress jobs. It lacks an explicit verb, reading as a noun-phrase fragment, but the resource and scope are inferable.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative named. The phrase 'finished job' hints that the job must be complete, but the description never says to call subagent_wait/status first or what to do if the job is still running.

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